Hard-Boiled Poker

Poker2Nite Brings Poker to the World

2009-12-08T11:55:00.029-05:00

Finally had a chance to catch up with the first three episodes of “Poker2Nite” the UB-sponsored weekly show now appearing Wednesday nights on Fox Sports Net. I only receive a limited package which does not include FSN, meaning I haven’t been able to dial the show up on the crystal receiver when it airs. But all of the episodes can be viewed online. Search YouTube for the show, or just visit the show’s site.

The mere fact that any network would entertain the notion of a weekly half-hour of poker news is itself an indicator of the extent to which our beloved mutt poker has surprisingly dog-paddled its way into the cultural mainstream. What are we supposed to think of this? In truth, it is very difficult for those of us who are fully immersed in poker and the poker media to have any sort of reliable perspective when it comes to judging a show like “Poker2Nite.”

Someone like me -- not only already familiar with practically all of the news and stories that appear on the show, but also with the now-lengthy “pokertainment” careers of the show’s hosts Scott Huff and Joe Sebok -- will necessarily have a hard time making any sort of objective-sounding statements about the show’s quality (that is, to guess how the show probably looks to someone not like me).

The situation makes me think of having once seen a feature-length article in the late 1990s in The New Yorker about the group The Shaggs.

The Shaggs were this little group of teenaged sisters (the Wiggins) who were encouraged by their father to cut an album back in 1969 called Philosophy of the World. The album -- full of oddball songs like “Who Are Parents?” and “My Pal Foot Foot” -- would have certainly disappeared without a trace had not Frank Zappa, guest hosting The Dr. Demento Show in 1973, played “My Pal Foot Foot” and voiced praise for the band.

Gradually The Shaggs (who never made another record) developed a cult following. Later on, the iconoclastic Zappa would dub Philosophy of the World the third-greatest album of all time. Like others, I found The Shaggs through Zappa and came to appreciate their decidedly amateurish but weirdly infectious LP. It’s one of those you-have-to-hear-it-to-believe-it-type records that causes most to wonder “is this a joke?” (A question which is itself, one could say, a starting point for developing a philosophy of the world.)

Anyhow, I remember not knowing how to react when I saw The New Yorker piece. It was as if something the essential nature of which was private had suddenly been rudely exposed for all to examine. “How could this possibly play to a wider audience?” I wondered. “No one is gonna get it.”

Actually, I think I can say the prospects that people are going to “get” “Poker2Nite” are much better. The show is styled after other sports news shows like “Sportscenter” or the like, with Huff and Sebok seated behind a desk (most of the time) delivering stories, conducting interviews, and introducing prepackaged segments from the field (or “on fifth street,” as Sebok calls his segments).

The first episode (11/18) featured pieces on the WSOP Main Event conclusion, a short interview with Joe Cada by Lacey Jones, an longer interview with Lon McEachern by the hosts, and a report on Tom “durrrr” Dwan’s signing with Full Tilt Poker. The second (11/25) had some talk about Isildur1, a report from an Annie Duke-hosted charity tournament, an interview with Andy Bloch, and a bit about how poker players celebrate Thanksgiving. Last week’s show (12/2) mostly concerned the delay of the banks’ compliance with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, including an interview with Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas.

No surprise to see Huff -- always terrific with the podcasts (in my opinion) -- function as a great host for this sort of thing. He looks to me as though he’s ready to step in over at the Fox Sports desk at any moment. Trying to imagine how those unfamiliar with PokerRoad or Huff or Sebok or even poker are going to view all of this, I’m guessing most who stumble onto FSN and see Huff are going to think he looks a little young but is a fine, capable host. They might even think like me and find him funny and likable.

Next to Huff, Sebok appears relatively less polished and/or comfortable, and I’m not certain how he comes off to the wider audience. I’m a big Sebok fan, but I ain’t sure how others operating the remote control are responding. This is where I think of The Shaggs a bit, and have to admit that, yeah, their guitars are a little out of tune. Okay, a lot out of tune. And yeah, I know, little Dot Wiggins’ voice sounds a little weird.

Okay, maybe more than a little.

I think even more along those lines watching Dana Workman’s “Weekly Misdeal” segment included in each episode, kind of the analogue to “The Tight Laydown with Joe Stapleton” that appears at the end of each episode of The Poker Beat podcast. I’m not seeing any credits for “Poker2Nite” to clarify, but I know I’ve heard Stapleton is involved with the show and am going to guess he’s writing those lines for Workman, most of which concern inside jokes about the poker world. I generally like Stapleton’s humor, but I’m not going to lie and say I’ve laughed all that much thus far at the “Weekly Misdeal.”

But hey, like The Shaggs sing, “It doesn’t matter where you go / It doesn’t matter who you see / There will always be / Someone who disagrees.”

I’m glad “Poker2Nite” is on FSN and I did enjoy watching the first three eps. But I haven’t a decent perspective on any of this, really. I can say that while I had misgivings about seeing that piece on The Shaggs in The New Yorker, I’m genuinely glad for the PokerRoad guys’ increased exposure on “Poker2Nite.” And optimistic about the show’s potential moving forward.

And like I say, I know for certain that Huff, Sebok, et al. have a much, much greater chance at achieving mainstream appeal than The Shaggs ever did. Don’t believe me? Here, listen to the title track from the third-greatest album ever:

The Familiar Struggle

2009-12-07T09:41:00.001-05:00

Had kind of a so-so November, poker-wise, ending the month down just a touch (following an awesome October). Have been so busy of late I haven’t been able to play as often as I normally do. Usually I try to play at least a short session pretty much every day, but in November I see I only actually played 17 of 30 days. And so far in December I didn’t play at all until this past weekend, when I put in a few sessions of pot-limit Omaha.

Total hands in November amounted to just about 4,400. That’s compared to 8,100 in October. I generally fare better when playing shortish (100-200 hand) sessions, although missing days affects me negatively, I think, as I find it difficult sometimes to get my head back into the game (as the PokerShrink would say) when I’ve been away for even a short while.

I’ve written before about considering myself a “recreational” player, although perhaps a little more serious than most of that category when it comes to thinking about the game and trying to improve. Even so, I find myself often lapsing back into “Level 1” thinking at the PLO tables, especially when I haven’t been playing regularly. That is to say, I find myself thinking a lot more about my own hand than what my opponent(s) have, a bad tendency that leads to a more passive style that relies more on my catching cards than anything else.

Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger talk about “Levels of Thinking” in their book The Poker Mindset: Essential Attitudes for Poker Success (2007). There they call the level where one is only thinking of one’s own hand “Level 0,” the level where one also considers one’s opponent’s hand “Level 1,” and so forth. The idea is the same, though, no matter how we number the levels.

I think PLO is a game where the difference between those two levels is perhaps more obviously noticeable than in, say, limit hold’em. Players who are brand new to PLO find it exceedingly difficult to put opponents on hands or hand ranges. (Hell, some find it tricky reading their own hands.) Even experienced PLO players like myself sometimes find it hard to keep thinking about opponents’ hands. And when you stop doing that, you necessarily become less effective.

As Taylor and Hilger say, “most players tend to think at different levels at different times.” Various factors come into play, causing us to move up or down levels, but the one they focus on is experience. “When a player is in a familiar situation, he is more likely to think at a higher level than usual,” they explain. “However, when faced with a difficult and unfamiliar situation, the same players will just revert to the [lower level] with which they are more familiar.”

Like I say, for new players especially, PLO presents a number of unfamiliar situations that cause one to focus more on one’s own hand than worry too much about what others have. Other factors can cause such lapses, too, like fatigue or tilt or whatever. But I like that idea that familiarity leads to clearer thinking, and thus helps one think more clearly about what the opponents have.

Thus the problem I’ve been facing with my intermittent play -- when I log on after missing a couple of days, I have to refamiliarize myself with starting hand values, bet sizing, calculating equity, etc. Such is the plight of the recreational player, I think. Also of the older player whose jingle-brain stopped growing probably before some of his opponents were born.

Now let’s see if I can remember how to post this sucker.

(That picture above comes from the poster for the 1987 film The Stepfather. I just wrote a little something about that film for Film Chaw today -- check it out.)

Doyle Brunson’s Confessions

2009-12-04T07:05:00.013-05:00

Been absolutely up to my eyeballs with work over the last week. Have yet to get to The Gambling Tales podcast, which I’m eager to hear. Also have not seen an episode of Poker2Nite yet, but this weekend I plan to give it a look.

I did manage to follow a little of that House hearing yesterday, and greatly enjoyed Pokerati Dan’s live blog of the proceedings. Definitely sounds as though the overall tenor of the online gambling debate has changed markedly, and so -- regardless of one’s views on it all -- it will be most interesting to see what comes next.

I also was able to find time to read Doyle Brunson’s new autobiography, The Godfather of Poker, and write a review over on Betfair -- check it out.

I liked the book and certainly recommend it to those interested in learning more about Texas Dolly’s story. As I mention in the review, he pretty much covers it all here, and while the book’s organization seems to break down a little toward the latter stages, I found myself fairly engaged right to the last pages.

One aspect of the book I didn’t dwell on too greatly in the review was the occasional discussions of faith that Brunson interweaves into his story. By no means is Brunson heavy-handed about it. In fact, near the end of the book he makes a point to distance himself from any suggestion that he might in any way be attempting force his views on others.

“I’m often asked about the difficulty of someone in my profession being a Christian,” he says near the book’s conclusion. “I avoid those kinds of discussions. I only talk with people I feel are genuinely interested in what I have to say about my Christian experience, and what I did to get to the point where I am now. Everyone’s entitled to his own beliefs.”

Faith matters only come up occasionally in the book, and every time they do Brunson handles them sensitively and with that same, careful touch, always focusing more on the status of his own faith than presuming to evaluate others’ -- an exception being his praise for the devout faith of his wife, Louise, and that of his mother, too.

Like I say, these discussions were not a huge part of the book, but I’ll admit there was a moment midway through when I found myself thinking of St. Augustine’s Confessions and noticing more than a few connections between Brunson’s story and that famous fifth-century autobiography in which Augustine tells the story of his own conversion to Christianity.

I’m not going to go too deeply into the parallels I saw, since they’ll probably only be interesting to those who are familiar with Confessions. I will just list a few, though.

Both begin their stories with childhood, and both recount getting involved with various mischief during their youth. As a kid, Augustine and some others steal some pears they don’t really need; in college, Brunson and some others steal some items from a nearby cabin (also unneeded). Both express sincere repentence for these actions (and other sins). Augustine’s father dies when he’s a teenager, and Brunson’s when he was in his twenties. In both cases, the fathers have relatively small influence on the sons’ lives, particularly with regard to their faith. Meanwhile, both have Christian mothers who live long lives and influence their sons greatly.

Like Augustine, Brunson finds his calling only after having tried other paths first. (Indeed, both were teachers, though Brunson only for a short while.) Both experience illness and recover. Both also find themselves nearly overwhelmed at times with grief over the death of others, but eventually find solace and strength in faith to endure.

Both are also constantly surrounded by mentors and friends along the way. Indeed, there was one moment following the death of Doyle’s eldest child, his daughter Doyla at age 18, when Brunson goes to a pastor named Bob Tremaine who offers him guidance during a difficult time. Brunson also speaks of the support of his close friend David “Chip” Reese, who would often discuss scripture with Brunson as would others in a Bible study group led by Tremaine. Couldn’t help but think of Augustine being mentored by St. Ambrose here, or his friend Alypius who is with him when he finally converts (and who converts as well).

There are a few other connections, some of which might require a little stretching to work, but you get the idea. As I say, unlike Augustine’s Confessions, a book explicitly written to help guide others toward the path of Christianity (among other purposes), such an evangelistic motive is obviously not primary for Brunson in his autobiography. His story is somewhat inspiring, though, and while he is hardly a perfect person -- and is always quick to confess he is not -- he nevertheless does in some ways present us with a model to follow.

For a less idiosyncratic reaction to the book, check out the review. And have a good weekend, all!

Talking Online Poker: House Hearing Today

2009-12-03T08:14:00.018-05:00

In a little under two hours, the House Financial Services Committee will be holding that hearing to discuss Rep. Barney Frank’s two UIGEA-related bills -- the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act (H.R. 2266) and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), both first introduced back in the spring.

As you recall, the Treasury and Federal Reserve granted a six-month delay for the enforcement of the final regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006, meaning banks and other financial institutions do not have to prohibit transactions with what they determine to be “unlawful” online gambling sites until June 1, 2010. (That doesn’t mean they cannot do so, if they wish, but only that they do not face UIGEA-mandated penalties for not doing so at present.)

The first bill, H.R. 2266, seeks a one-year delay, and so would push the deadline for compliance even further ahead to December 1, 2010. The second bill outlines a comprehensive system for licensing and regulating online poker in the United States.

Looks like the hearing will be featuring a number of witnesses with particular interest in and/or knowledge of the gambling industry (generally speaking), online gambling, internet safety, and the banking industry. Their testimony has already been posted over on the House Financial Services Committee’s website, so we can go ahead right now and get a decent idea what sorts of topics will be discussed later this morning.

The first witness, the Hon. Robert Martin, Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians opposes both bills. According to his testimony, Martin’s tribe, located in southern California, has employed as many as 2,500 (most of which are not tribe members) in its live casinos. He views H.R. 2266 as merely providing a further “safe harbor to those currently engaged in illegal online gaming” -- that’s his interpretation of the UIGEA’s characterization of offshore sites that allow U.S. customers. H.R. 2267 he views as posing a threat to the welfare his industry, paving the way for an unfair landscape in which tribes like his would not be able to compete.

The next witness is Ms. Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety, “the largest internet safety and help group in the world.” She speaks in support of H.R. 2267 (and against the UIGEA), arguing that “the best way to protect families and consumers in connection with cyber gambling is by legalizing it, not outlawing it entirely.” Her testimony endorses the functionality of age verification when it comes to online gambling.

Then comes Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow of the JFK School of Government at Harvard University. (Is this a witness list or a game of Clue?) He’ll be addressing the question “Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated?” His written testimony consists of a lengthy (nearly 100-page) academic essay which I assume he’ll be summarizing for the Committee. The study was commissioned by WiredSafety, and essentially builds upon Ms. Aftab’s testimony that yes, indeed, online gambling can be regulated, and yes, in the opinion of Prof. Sparrow and his co-authors, the “establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer a far better protection against online gambling’s potential social harms than outright prohibition.”

Mr. Jim Dowling of the Dowling Advisory Group is next on the list. Dowling is a fellow with some experience with trying to prevent fraud and money laundering. He appears “neither as an advocate nor a foe of Internet gaming,” but rather to share his view “that the current legislation prohibiting Internet gambling-related payments is lacking in regulatory support, and to be successful, the government -- probably the Justice Department—needs to provide banks an OFAC-like list of illegal sites that then could be blocked relatively easily.” (By the way, OFAC refers to the Office of Foreign Assets Control.) This question of providing a list of forbidden sites has been addressed before, and the feds have remained fairly steadfast in their unwillingness to commit to any such task. Dowling isn’t necessarily saying H.R. 2267 is going to make for a safer landscape, either, as he still maintains “legalizing Internet gambling poses significant money laundering and terrorism threats.”

After Dowling, Mr. Samuel A. Vallandingham, CIO and VP of the First State Bank, will speak as a representative of the Independent Community Bankers of America. Much as other representatives of the banking industry have done in past hearings on the UIGEA, Vallandingham is going to be explaining how arduous and unfeasible it is for the banks to be expected to enforce the UIGEA as it is written, and thus will be endorsing both of Frank’s bills.

The last witness on the list is Mr. Michael Brodsky, Executive Chairman of YouBet.com, a site that accepts wagers on pari-mutuel horse racing. Brodsky will speak in support of Frank’s bills as well, noting how he wants online gambling licenced and regulated. Skimming his testimony, I’m not seeing him specifically referring to the UIGEA’s “overblocking” of bets -- a great concern to sites like YouBet.com, which is why the horse racing folks got behind the petition to delay compliance with the UIGEA.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing from various Congressmen along the way, too, including Frank and the ever obtuse Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the highest-ranking minority member of the House Financial Services Committee who usually tries to link online gambling with suicide, terrorism, or other horrors plaguing our fragile, godless world.

While today’s hearing will produce a lot of news stories about the UIGEA and online gambling, it will be most interesting to see what (if anything) happens over the next couple of weeks with regard to either of Frank’s bills. While I wouldn’t mind seeing H.R. 2266 make it through and the delay get extended to a full year, I remain somewhat hesitant about H.R. 2267 and the idea of federally licensed and regulated online poker in the U.S.

My buddy the Poker Grump believes “federal licensure and regulation of gaming will eventually choke the life out of online poker,” and while I’m not entirely ready to commit to that as a certainty, I do have a lot of reservation about what such a regulated and licensed world might be like. (In particular, I fear those state opt-outs which might result in my not being able to play at all.) I do agree that online poker under the IGRCPEA (or whatever we want to call H.R. 2267) ain’t gonna be preferable to what we have now. But it doesn’t seem as though what we have now is going to be an option beyond some, ever-nearing deadline.

If Frank’s bill doesn’t pass and the UIGEA eventually does get implemented, that will spell some serious short-term damage to online poker in the U.S., probably followed by a court challenge to the UIGEA (which may well be successful). Thus, the UIGEA could get “overturned” without our having a bill like Frank’s get passed, although I can’t imagine that happening without the industry having to endure a few years of big time hurtin’ during the interim.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place. That’s where we be, I think.

It Goes Without Saying

2009-12-02T07:20:00.009-05:00

From the Department of Redundancy Department: Yesterday my local sports page featured not one but two editorials by regular columnists calling for Tiger Woods to tell the world what exactly happened during the wee hours of last Friday morning when he crashed his Escalade.

The op-eds ran side by side, both beginning on page one of the sports section, then continued together on page four. But it wasn’t one of those “you take one side, I’ll take the other” deals -- no, both writers were making the same point, in almost the same terms.

Both mentioned how Woods named his yacht “Privacy.” Both brought up David Letterman as a counterexample of public confession. Both seized Woods’ statement that “This situation is my fault” (from his website) as opening the door to a wider range of possible behaviors or actions for which he might be culpable.

“There's a difference in hiding something and choosing to keep it private,” concluded one. “Clearly, you're hiding something here,” said the other, speaking directly to Woods. “Explain yourself. First, to the police. Then, to the public.”

More than a little presumptuous, really. Not to mention superfluous. I wondered if the writers had themselves been too private about what they’d chosen to write about for their columns yesterday -- a little talk over the cubicles might’ve prevented our having to read the same message twice like that.

Of course, they weren’t the only ones making the same argument. Most of the media seems to have taken up an identical cause over the last day or two, appearing to devote more attention to the Woods incident than to the news that 30,000 more troops are heading to Afghanistan. By doing so, they prove their own argument that the less Woods says, the more others will speculate about him.

You’ve probably picked up on my cynicism regarding it all by now, and indeed, I have no intention to provide any sort of “op-ed” (in either direction) on the topic. Instead, I’ll just make an observation about it all that is perhaps obvious to poker players. Some, anyway. The kind of thing that goes without saying. Namely...

The less you say, the more others will speculate about you.

In terms of poker news, we’ve kind of witnessed a version of this idea with the whole “Who Is Isildur1?” phenomenon of the last few weeks. But I’m referring more specifically to the frequently encountered situation at the tables wherein the player who refuses to give any extraneous information via speech or physical tells becomes increasingly provocative to others, especially if that player is winning and/or has otherwise demonstrated a proficiency with his or her play.

In the second volume of his Harrington on Cash Games, Dan Harrington includes a chapter on “Tells and Observations” in which he largely diminishes the importance of reading others’ physical tells (making note of betting patterns is more important, he argues), but does say that “controlling your own tells is ‘Job Number One.’”

Harrington offers some advice regarding how to go about revealing as little as possible about yourself, including describing what he calls “The Patrik Antonius Way.” Explains Harrington, the Finnish pro well exemplifies the “classically simple” method of information-hiding when “he just sits at the table, stiff as a board, and stares silently at a fixed point in space.”

If you think about it, these same sports writers have been heaping praise on Woods for years for what might be called his “classically simple” method of hiding (or keeping private) any extraneous information on the golf course -- of being able to shut out all and incredibly maintain his famous “focus.” He’ll show emotion sometimes, sure, but there’s no disturbing him from that next shot. And that ability to focus disturbs his opponents.

Or it can, anyway. Many have noted the “Tiger Woods Effect” over the years, whereby other players play less well when partnered with him or even when playing in the same tournament. In fact, there was a scientific study published late last year by Jennifer Brown (a professor in Northwestern University’s Department of Marketing and Strategy) that attempted to quantify “the (adverse) incentive effects of competing with superstars” in which Woods was used as a primary example. Among other findings, Brown noted how in the tourneys she studied players averaged 0.8 strokes less per tournament when Woods was also playing.

Says Brown, “My calculations suggest that Woods’s PGA Tour earnings would have fallen from $48.1 million to $43.2 million between 1999 and 2006 had his competitors’ performance not suffered the superstar effect.” “Viewed in this light,” the effect of Woods’s mere presence in the field represents “is economically substantial,” she concludes.

Brown isn’t specifically referring to Woods’s ability to resist giving his opponents extraneous information while playing, but I think we can add his unwavering focus on the course to the list of qualities that unnerve his opponents, perhaps increasing the significance of that “superstar effect.”

Anyhow, now the superstar ain’t talking. And that’s causing everyone else to talk about him. Such a strategy works well -- can even be “economically substantial” -- at the poker table, or even on the golf course. But as the preponderance of these editorials suggests, I guess the “effect” is probably a little less desirable here.

Poker Book Review: Victoria Coren’s For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair With Poker

2009-12-01T10:30:00.012-05:00

I have written about Victoria Coren here before on a couple of occasions, having heard her on podcasts, occasionally read her poker-related columns in The Guardian, and covered her in a few tournaments, both live and online. In one post, “Victoria’s Secrets,” I wrote about her very interesting interview with Gary Wise in which she offered some insights about the whole men-vs.-women-in-poker thing, as well as discussed writing and poker and the great poker narratives such as The Biggest Game in Town (1983) by Al Alvarez and Anthony Holden’s Big Deal (1990).

In that interview with Wise (from January 2009), Coren mentioned that she was at work on her own poker narrative. The book, titled For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair with Poker, arrived this fall. I recently had the chance to read and review it, and wanted to share a few comments here about the book as well. The book primarily functions as a “poker memoir” chronicling Coren’s poker career -- from her first learning the game as a teenager from her older brother in the late 1980s to her becoming a European Poker Tour champ and a PokerStars team pro. The book is much more than that, though. Let me explain.

The category of “poker books,” despite being a teeny, tiny niche (really), includes a wide variety of styles and subjects. Go to Borders or Barnes and Noble and on the “poker” shelves you’ll find jammed together strategy texts (covering a wide variety of games, both cash and tourney), simple “how-to” primers, rulebooks, biographies, autobiographies, histories, and more. People visit these shelves for a number of different reasons, and in a lot of instances, books are prejudged by the (potential) reader’s idea or opinion of the poker-playing ability of the author. Such preconceptions have relevance, certainly, when considering a strategy text, though aren’t necessarily as valuable when considering other, non-strategy works.

As a poker player, Coren has had some success, highlighted most prominently by her victory at the EPT London Main Event in 2006 (a sweet £500,000 score). Some -- especially poker players who tend to adhere to the “time equals money” formula -- will not be persuaded by her other, less obviously remarkable results to consider her memoir worthy of their “investment” (in time or in cabbage). Such folks will be missing out on a well-crafted, perceptive, and witty example of storytelling which I would think should appeal to all poker players. Probably would interest some non-poker players, too, I’d imagine.

Coren does tell the tale of her 2006 EPT success, cleverly winding her narrative of the most significant hands from that final table with the primary autobiographical thread. Each chapter is punctuated with a hand, and it is in those interludes one encounters the bulk of the “strategy” talk in the book. But even there the emphasis isn’t so much on strategy as on relating Coren’s ups and downs as that dramatic final table plays out.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, the autobiography begins with Coren first learning the game as a teen, then going to college after which she takes a turn as a standup comedian. Eventually Coren finds herself repeatedly returning to the Victoria Casino in London (the “Vic”), enamored with other gambling games (especially roulette) but eyeing the poker tables as well. Then comes an opportunity to go to Las Vegas to interview Huck Seed for a newspaper. Seed had just won the 1996 World Series of Poker Main Event, and for Coren the opportunity provides a kind of “seed” -- my groan-worthy pun, not Coren’s -- for a career in journalism as well as for her continued pursuit of poker.

The rest of the book carries her story forward to 2006 where the twin narratives finally join together -- in surprisingly dramatic, even moving fashion -- near the book’s conclusion. Along the way, we read about Coren’s becoming involved with “Late Night Poker,” the ground-breaking poker TV show that debuted in 1999 and on which she eventually appeared both as a player and a commentator; her early experiences at the Vic and in Vegas, including her first participation in events at the WSOP; her developing many friendships with poker players, with nifty character sketches of figures like Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott, Neil Channing, John Duthie, Hamish Shah, Roland de Wolfe, and the Hendon Mob guys; her other, more significant relationships with men (all discreetly handled); and the illness and death of her father, the satirist Alan Coren.

A few themes emerge over the course of the book, besides the ongoing “education of a poker player” that is happening throughout. As one might expect, there is the whole “woman in a man’s world” motif, symbolically introduced in the book’s opening line: “My brother’s game is on the other side of that wall.”

As in that interview with Wise, Coren makes some keen points here when discussing the subject of women in poker. “Men and women are not sufficiently different, psychologically, for either gender to be ‘naturally’ better at poker than the other,” she maintains, though quickly adds that she is “not saying that gender differences don’t exist.” She goes on to speculate that “If the differences between men and women are relevant to the game at all, it should be true that women’s traditional qualities of craftiness, patience and guile should balance out the male instincts of aggression, bluff and bluster.”

When playing at the Ladies Event at the 2001 WSOP, Coren notes the strangeness of the scene -- that is, a poker room filled with hundreds of women at the tables and no men -- humorously describing it as “like science fiction.” “It’s a vision of how the world could have been,” she writes, “if somebody stepped on a butterfly and it all turned out different.” While not everyone is going to agree with her conclusions on this subject, I think her book does provide a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about women in poker.

Another, somewhat related theme that emerges in the book is suggested by the title, taken from traditional wedding vows. Coren frequently notes how her path in life has not included marriage or children (yet), and indeed poker -- with whom she’s had a lifelong “romance” -- kind of takes the place of that traditional sort of relationship. (As she notes in the preface, “poker is the most companionable thing I do.”) There is also a lot in there about the “the romance of poker” and its various thrills, all of which she relates accurately and effectively.

Those of you who have read Coren’s columns know she is both witty and “literary” in her writing -- that is to say, she definitely can make you laugh, but she can also deftly employ various poetic devices (symbol, metaphor, allusion) to help her communicate her intended meaning. I could make this post even longer by citing the many examples of both her wit and literary sensibility, but I’ll confine myself to sharing just one of each.

Among the book’s many laugh-out-loud moments is Coren’s account of her meeting Phil Hellmuth in 2001. He’d come over for a series of “Late Night Poker” in which Coren was also participating, and a group goes out for dinner. Ever the entrepreneur, Hellmuth begins describing his idea for an album -- The Phil Hellmuth Poker Album -- for which he’ll compile songs from other bands’ outtakes. Coren questions him about the project, not understanding what exactly makes it a “Phil Hellmuth” album or a “poker” album. “‘I will have collected the songs,’” he explains, excitedly (and enigmatically). “‘And I’m a poker player.’”

Coren’s response is to cite the lack of relevance. “‘You might as well gather up a bunch of animals,’’” she says, “‘put them in a field and call it The Phil Hellmuth Poker Farm.’”

As far as “literary” moments go, I especially like one Proustian passage in which she shares a flashback to a trip to a flea market as a 12-year-old with her father, a memory which is in fact inspired by her account of a Vegas trip and a particularly successful run at the craps tables with a group of friends. It is “one of those moments you dream about in gambling,” she explains, where the group keeps winning and winning. Her description of the run dissolves into a giddy, lyrical expression of that hard-to-define pleasure that comes from winning (and, not incidentally, from experiencing meaningful companionship, too): “We cannot lose. We will never lose again. We will never be lonely, we will never get ill and we will never die. Our chip towers are rising and rising and rising and rising. Dice are beautiful. Everything is beautiful. Everybody’s beautiful.”

Like I say, there’s more here. But I think you get the idea. There’s some strategy talk, but that’s not why you pick this book up. Rather, For Richer, For Poorer is for those who love literature, who love to laugh, and who love poker.

Does the WSOP Need a Commish?

2009-11-30T07:02:00.012-05:00

As I’m sure most of you have heard by now, a delay was indeed granted for compliance with the finalized regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, meaning U.S. banks and other financial institutions will not be required to block transactions with online gambling sites until June 1, 2010. Doesn’t mean they cannot block such transactions already -- they have been able to do that since January 19, 2009, in fact -- but doing so is still not mandatory.

So another six months to see if any other legislation might get moved along here. Will be keeping an eye on that hearing scheduled for Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m., the one where the House Financial Services Committee will be discussing Rep. Barney Frank’s two bills -- one to make the UIGEA delay a full year, and the other to introduce a mechanism with which to regulate online gambling in this country.

The delay is terrific news, in my view, and while regulation isn’t necessarily desirable -- particularly if certain states, namely my own, opt out -- it doesn’t look as bad as a world in which the UIGEA has been fully implemented.

Indeed, the misbegotten law has already done significant damage in the poker world, negatively affecting both online and live poker as well as the various industries associated with both. Sure, the UIGEA has certainly provided me with a lot to write about here at Hard-Boiled Poker over the last three-plus years, but the overall effect of the law has been exceedingly negative. Will be glad to see the sucker taken care of once and for all.

Speaking of the “UIGEA era,” I was thinking again over the weekend about the World Series of Poker and how a little over two weeks ago, Jeffrey Pollack stepped down from his post as the first-ever WSOP Commissioner. Since Pollack’s resignation, a few folks have written further about how he’ll be remembered, and indeed, one aspect of his tenure as Commish will be how it mostly coincided with this awful law that single-handedly slowed down what appeared at the time to be unstoppable growth for the Series.

In “The Pollack Legacy: The Good, the Bad, and the Silly,” Amy Calistri does a good job compiling various moments of significance during Pollack’s time with the WSOP. In her discussion, Calistri notes how “After the UIGEA, people were ready to stick a fork in poker,” and how she and others all “argued that the UIGEA would accelerate the end of the poker boom.” However, the WSOP rebounded from the hit, and Pollack’s contribution to that recovery was certainly, as Calistri says, a “significant accomplishment” for which he’ll be remembered.

T.J. Cloutier also wrote a little something about Pollack last week, a piece titled “Poker Has Lost a Good Man.” In his article, Cloutier talks a bit about how Harrah’s apparently created “a position one level above” Pollack’s, someone who would henceforth “be a buffer between [Pollack] and top management,” and speculates about whether that bit of reorganization might have provided a kind of encouragement for Pollack to step down.

Cloutier, who served as a member of the Players Advisory Council (a Pollack creation), notes that while Pollack always “had to answer to corporate management,” in his view “he was pretty much in control of the World Series.” The implication, then, is that given a situation in which the Commissioner no longer enjoyed such control, Pollack chose to move on. Not sure what the hierarchy really is at present, but the fact that soon after Pollack’s resignation Harrah’s stated it has “no intention at this time to replace the Commissioner role” does suggest the corporation feels that moving forward the operational management of the WSOP can continue without any Commish appearing to guide the ship.

Does the WSOP need a Commissioner? It did, after all, make it 35 years without one.

Gary Trask of Casino City Times thinks so. In a recent article, Trask argues that the Series “needs someone -- not a group of people -- to act as the face of the brand.” He has a point, and indeed, as one further considers the “Pollack legacy,” one might add how he succeeded in making the whole idea of having someone “act as the face of the brand” seem essential for the WSOP. (In the post-Binion’s era of the WSOP, that is.)

As Trask notes, one especially important function of the Commissioner is to provide “a voice to do the same and take the heat when something goes awry” -- something that will surely happen, no matter how well managed things go. Trask goes onto suggest his top ten current poker professionals who could serve as Commish, although I think most would agree that it probably wouldn’t do to have a pro come along to fill the position. (Trask puts the well-liked Mike Sexton atop his list, perhaps the only serious suggestion among the ten.)

While not everyone was always happy with Pollack, the consensus seems to be mostly favorable regarding his legacy, and the fact that it seems difficult to imagine a replacement is probably further evidence of his having served a successful term in the position. I agree with Trask that it is probably a mistake to move forward without having someone acting as WSOP Commissioner, although I cannot easily imagine who would be the person to fill that politically-challenging role.

I know I wouldn’t want to.

Bellyful of Bird, Waiting for Word

2009-11-27T10:32:00.017-05:00

I hope everyone had a great Turkey Day. I know I did. A fun day of family, food, and football. Vera Valmore did a terrific job with the bird this year. I snapped that photo mere moments before the massacre began.

Was great catching up with family. Was also nice to go three-for-three with my NFL picks, giving More Cowbell some much-needed momentum heading into the weekend.

Will be keeping an ear out today, of course, for the official word regarding that six-month delay for banks to comply with the so-called “Final Rule” of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I assume we’ll probably be hearing something about it over at the Poker Players Alliance website, as they will surely be coming forth with a response once the news is official.

Meanwhile, since I am thinkin’ very few are gonna be checking in on blogs today, I think I’ll keep it short and continue to enjoy some R & R.

If you are in a reading mood, though, I do have a new piece up over on Betfair this morning, titled “Isildur1, and the Search for the Biggest Game Around.” Tried to place Isildur1 in an historical context and talk about some other famous examples of folks looking to take on the best players at the highest stakes -- people like Nick “the Greek” Dandalos, Jimmy Chagra, Andy Beal, and a couple of others.

By the way, next week I will be reviewing Doyle Brunson’s new autobiography, The Godfather of Poker for Betfair. Already moving through it fairly quickly -- a great read.

Think I’ll go grab myself a slice of that pumpkin pie.

(EDIT [added 11/27/09, 1:00 p.m.]: It’s official -- the deadline for implementation of the UIGEA regs has been delayed until 6/1/2010. Per this presser from the Federal Reserve. As you were.)

Thankful, I Am

2009-11-26T08:24:00.011-05:00

Whew. Like that turkey, named “Courage,” who yesterday received a last-minute “pardon” from President Obama sparing him from a dinner table, it looks like we online poker players in the U.S. have also been granted a reprieve. For a while, anyhow.

It’s Thanksgiving, and if yr like me you have a lot else going on today than to be checking in on yr poker blogs. But I did want to note the big news yesterday before going back into the kitchen to help Vera with that awesome feast she’s preparing for the big crowd a-comin’ a little later.

There was no official announcement yesterday, but apparently there will be a six-month delay before banks and other institutions will be made to comply with the finalized regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. As I mentioned yesterday, the Engineer was saying he’d heard as much over on the Two Plus Two forums. We also heard during the day from Joe Brennan, the chairman of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, who said an announcement by Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, would be coming on Friday. That would make June 1, 2010 the new deadline.

The delay would add extra urgency to the hearing of the House Financial Services Committee scheduled next Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss both of Rep. Barney Frank’s bills, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act (H.R. 2266) and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267).

If you recall, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act is a very brief bill simply asking the feds for a one-year delay. Not sure what the status of this would be if a six-month delay were already in place, but the added delay could still be entertained, I suppose. This H.R. 2266 actually has 53 co-sponsors at present, which suggests some real support for the idea of holding off on making UIGEA compliance mandatory.

The other bill, the Internet Gambling, Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, is Frank’s second go at comprehensive legislation designed to regulate (and tax, natch) online poker in the U.S. (following his earlier, failed IGREA bill from 2007). That one is now up to 63 co-sponsors, so there appears to be a bit of a groundswell there, too, as far as getting it to a House vote.

My initial reaction is to be ecstatic about the still-not-official-but-seemingly-gonna-happen announcement of a delay. Not just for the sake of folks being able to continue playing online poker, but for the rest of the industry, too -- including the media side of things, in which I now have more than a little bit of an investment.

My second reaction considers what may come next. It appears this idea of regulation -- the prospect of which doesn’t thrill all of us -- may well happen, and possibly sooner than later. While many of us would like the situation to remain as is, that doesn’t appear to be an option, really.

Rather, we’re probably looking at one of two futures here. We could get to the end of these six months and the UIGEA’s “Final Rule” could still be implemented. Seems less likely today that would happen, but it could. Americans would start running into trouble processing transactions with online gambling sites, and eventually a case would go to court. Some have said the UIGEA wouldn’t hold up in that setting, but we’re talking months or years down the road -- and a lot of headaches -- before we got to that point.

The other possible future appears to be some sort of regulation of online poker, such as suggested by Frank’s bill. Thursday’s hearing will tell us a lot, I think, regarding the chances of that happening. I’ve wondered aloud on here a couple of times about the question “Do We Really Want Online Poker Regulated?” While I’ve been less than enthusiastic about the idea of regulation, it is starting to look as though it might become more difficult to fight that fight going forward -- that is to say, it doesn’t look like we’re gonna be able to keep things the way they are.

Stuff to ponder in between bites of turkey and cranberry sauce, I guess. And during the commercial breaks of today’s football marathon. Speaking of, I better head over to Pauly’s Pub to make my picks this morning. After four weeks of outpicking everyone, last week I was tied for last with just 9-of-16 correct -- including three or four heartbreaking last-minute losses -- thereby dropping me back into a tie for tenth. So my team, More Cowbell, needs to get things back on track starting today.

For now, though, among the many things I am thankful for today, I am most certainly glad about the delay of compliance with them UIGEA regs.

Have a great T-giving, peoples!

The Door is Closing: Hoping for UIGEA Delay

2009-11-25T08:56:00.016-05:00

Yesterday on the Two Plus Two forums, a question was asked about “how pivotal are the next 24 hours” when it comes to the possibility that compliance with the finalized regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 -- scheduled to begin next Tuesday, December 1 -- will be delayed.

According to Rich “The Engineer” Muny, a member of the Board of Directors of the Poker Players Alliance, “If [the] Treasury decides to delay implementation of the bill, it could be announced tomorrow, or it could go to Monday just as easily.” Indeed, as Muny implies, since the Thanksgiving holiday is upon us, if we don’t hear anything today, then Monday is really the last chance.

It is very difficult for the average shamus to detect the odds of a delay with any precision here. I’ve been reading the forums and other sites, and occasionally see expressions of optimism about the feds stepping in here and extend the deadline. But it is hard to tell from where such optimism comes.

On November 20 (last Friday), an article titled “High Stakes for Online Gamblers” popped up over on the Newsweek blog regarding the impending deadline and the recent request for a delay. The article, by Jeremy Herb, makes reference to an unnamed “Federal Reserve official” saying that a decision regarding delaying compliance had yet to be made.

That’s with just a week-and-a-half to go. Talk about a sweat.

Herb’s article additionally provides a decent overview of the situation, including some background on how the UIGEA came to be and the problems that still exist for banks and other financial institutions with regard to implementation. Herb references that October 1 letter from House Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) -- also signed by 17 other members of Congress -- asking the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve “to extend the date of compliance for the final regulations implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by one year.” The feds do have the power to enact such a delay thanks to something called the Administrative Procedure Act.

He also notes that other November 3 letter, also sent to Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury) and Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) in which they “strongly oppose” the request made by Frank et al. for an extension, arguing that “there is no justification for delaying the compliance deadline of the UIGEA regulations.”

Among other points made by Kyl and Bachus, they cite the fact that banks have already had nearly a year to ready themselves for compliance, and so should not need any further time in that regard. Also, the pair notes how the “Final Rule was adopted after a lengthy and open rulemaking process,” and that any “‘problems’ [they use the scare quotes] raised by certain interest groups are speculative.”

You remember Kyl as one of the first authors of the bill that eventually became the UIGEA, and Bachus as the clown who in House hearings rode a moral high horse while misrepresenting studies about gambling and Full Tilt Poker pro biographies. (If yr curious, here is a post in which I shared some details from Bachus’ mostly deranged contributions to the discussion of online gambling.)

The most infuriating moment in their letter comes at the end when they characterize the delay request as “a blatant attempt to circumvent the democratic process.” O RLY?

Let us think back to how the bill came to be passed by the House and Senate back on September 30, 2006 after being sneakily appended to the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006. There was zero discussion of the UIGEA part of the bill when the House and Senate hastily voted in favor of the SAFE Port Act in their final session of the 2006 Congress. Then President George W. Bush signed it into law two weeks later. Indeed, thanks in large part to then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Kyl, their efforts represented as “blatant” an example of legislators working “to circumvent the democratic process” as it gets.

The fact is, both Geithner (top) and Bernanke (bottom) -- the ones to whom the petition to delay compliance has been directed -- have a lot else on their minds at the moment. Geithner’s status as Treasury Secretary is presently more than a little tenuous. Just last week he was explicitly asked to resign by House Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX). Said Brady to Geithner, “the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do your job. Conservatives agree... liberals agree... it is time for a fresh start.”

Bernanke is also facing a lot of opposition from Congress at the moment. President Obama has already nominated Bernanke for a second four-year term as Federal Reserve Chairman, but Congress has to approve the nomination, and it is expected that their approval -- if it comes -- will not be without a lot of strife. The first hearing on that matter is scheduled for next Thursday, December 3.

So the guys who have to step in here and do something for us... well, one wonders how high a priority the UIGEA really is to them at the moment.

It’s frustrating as hell. We took a big hit early on in this one, and have been playing with a short stack from the get-go. Now the blinds have finally caught up with us. We have to catch a hand to survive.

Here’s hoping we do get the word today of a delay, and thus have something else to be thankful for tomorrow.

(EDIT [added 11/25/09, 10:30 a.m.]: This just in -- the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, will be meeting on Thursday, December 3 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss his two bills, the Reasonable Prudence in Regulation Act [H.R. 2266] and the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act [H.R. 2267]. Of course the former bill -- which seeks to delay implementation of the UIGEA regs one year -- would apparently be somewhat moot should the regs go into effect on 12/1. Again, hard to read this announcement as an indicator of anything specific with regard to a possible delay. Stay tuned!)

(EDIT [added 11/25/09, 3:25 p.m.): The Engineer is reporting there may be a six-month delay in the implementation of the finalized regs. Read here. Good news, if this turns out to be the case!)

I Like Such Themes and Anything Connected to This Matter

2009-11-24T08:40:00.016-05:00

My most dedicated fan, Anonymous, has been leaving lots of great comments lately! Just a sample:

“It is extremely interesting for me to read the post. Thank author for it. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.”

“I am glad to find this forum!”

“hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com every day.”

There have been some other terrific (and informative!) comments having to do with various male enhancers, really awesome programs that are the best on the net, and World of Warcraft. Great to get feedback! I do want to thank Anonymous for taking the time.

Meanwhile, when not spending time trying to contain all of the spammage over in Comment Moderation, I’ve been doing some other scribblin’.

On Friday of last week I had a new piece over on the Betfair site with the long title “The Yanks and the Banks: The UIGEA and the Future of Online Poker in the U.S.” Hard to believe the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 has been with us for over three years now. And that I’ve been writing about it that long, too.

In the Betfair piece I tried to give a brief history of the UIGEA, talking about its surreptitious passage by the House and Senate that fateful September night, Bush signing the sucker into law, the various machinations surrounding the writing of the regulations and their finalization, then the Bush administration at last implementing the law with its final regs on the last full day of his presidency.

I conclude with a bit of speculation about what might happen on December 1 when the banks and other “designated payment systems” are made to comply with the law or face stiff penalties. It sounds like some (most?) of us Americans will be facing some difficulties when trying to deposit to online poker sites following that date, although it depends largely on our individual banks or favored deposit methods. There is a lot up in the air, obviously, and I resisted trying to predict too specifically what might happen a week from now.

I’ve had the chance recently to do some additional writing for another U.K.-based publication as well, including book reviews and a regular “U.S. Report” on what’s been happening Stateside poker-wise. As with writing for Betfair, it can be interesting -- and a little challenging -- to think about how to report U.S. news to a non-U.S. audience. I’m finding that in the “U.S. Report” I’m usually gravitating toward three areas in my rundown of what’s been going on -- tourney stuff (the professional circuit), legal stuff (both state and federal), and poker on TV (the “mainstreaming” of poker).

The tourneys grind on, with some interesting trends developing with regard to buy-ins and entrants. The legal news is always a mix of good news and bad news with regard to particular states, with the online crowd all nervously eyeing December 1. And the various poker shows and other TV appearances by poker players all amount to good publicity on the whole, it seems.

Looking at it all from the outside, though, I’d say poker’s status in the United States is as confused and paradoxical as it has ever been. Never more popular, really, but never more contentious either.

Finally, I’ve been doing some outlining and character sketches for a second hard-boiled novel. It is not a sequel to Same Difference, although I’ve had a couple of readers tell me they’d read another one featuring my detective character who narrates that one, the story of which is set in 1976 New York City and has nothing at all to do with poker. Instead, I have a new set of characters in mind, and am thinking of a different period and setting altogether. And no, I’m not really planning to include any poker in this new one, either, although things could change.

Found out late last week I had overlooked one small step in the publishing process for Same Difference, thus delaying its getting distributed over on Amazon and other outlets. Was a little frustrating, but no biggie, really. Looks like it’ll be Dec. or Jan., now, before the book starts popping up elsewhere. I can wait.

The novel is currently available over on Lulu. Click here to get to the book’s Lulu page, which includes a synopsis and a preview of the first few pages. I started a Facebook page for Same Difference, but haven’t added much to it as yet. I’m thinking perhaps down the road of adding links to reviews or any other fun stuff that might come from folks reading the book. That would also be a place where people could leave comments, too.

’Cos, you know, feedback is always welcome.

$1,356,946.50

2009-11-23T07:44:00.016-05:00

It is interesting sometimes to read theories about how the money flows in online poker -- that is, how the cabbage tends to move from the less skilled players to the more skilled players, and how that transfer tends to work relative to the stakes being played.

Those with a better understanding of economics, generally speaking -- and “poker economics” in particular -- can comment on this subject much better than I can. (Which is to say, most of you, probably.) But what I tend to hear is that the money doesn’t “trickle down” from higher stakes games to lower stakes games, but rather moves in the opposite direction. That is to say, the better players win at the lower stakes, then take the money out of that level and move it into the higher stakes games. There they either keep winning and moving up, or encounter still better players and lose, with the winners taking the money to the next highest level. And so forth.

Of course, this has to end somewhere, yes? A highest level where the money stays until someone leaves the game with it all?

When it comes to online poker, that level appears to be the so-called “nosebleed” games over on Full Tilt Poker. There the site has designated five different stakes: Micro, Low, Middle, High, and Ivey’s Room. The latter, named after Full Tilt pro Phil Ivey, of course, is where we find the toppermost games such as $500/$1,000 no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha.

Those who play in such high-stakes games are generally known quantities, either Full Tilt pros like Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, or Tom Dwan, or other non-Full Tilters whose identities are generally understood by those involved. Thus it was a somewhat novel development a few weeks ago when a new player -- named “Isildur1” -- showed up relatively unannounced to challenge poker’s current royalty.

Even more curious, the player (from Sweden, it seems) began winning. Big time.

Isildur1 had first arrived on the site sometime in September, starting out at the $25/$50 NLHE tables. By October he had moved up to challenge the likes of Cole South, Brian Townsend, and Brian Hastings at the $200/$400 and $300/$600 PLO and NLHE tables. At the start of November, he appeared to have settled into Ivey's Room, ready to take on all comers.

By last week, Isildur1 had become the talk of the virtual town, having amassed over $5 million in profit while occasionally seen taking on Ivey, Antonius, and Dwan simultaneously at multiple tables. One particularly epic session of multi-tabling took place between Isildur1 and Dwan in which the unknown Swede took more than $3 million off of Dwan.

The player Haseeb "INTERNETPOKERS" Qureshi keeps a well-written blog for CardRunners where he is one of the site’s stable of pros, and early last week he wrote a thoughtful post (dated 11/17/09) about the Isildur1 phenomenon. Qureshi played (and lost) to Isildur1 as the latter was on his way up in stakes, and shares some thoughts about their match. But he also speaks thoughtfully about the significance of Isildur1’s sudden rise to prominence and how it affects the “mythology of online poker.” If you are at all interested in the Isildur1 phenomenon, Qureshi’s post is a good read.

On Saturday night I found myself railing the games in Ivey’s Room. I saw Isildur1 playing multiple tables versus Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey while also participating in the $25,000 buy-in PLO heads-up tournament from which Isildur1 eventually busted in the quarterfinals. The games went back and forth for a while, then Isildur1 went on a big downswing, highlighted by a record-setting $1,356,946.50 pot won by Antonius (pictured at the top of the post).

In the hand, Antonius started with almost $1.26 million, while Isildur1 had just over $678,000. The buy-in at these $500/$1,000 PLO games is $200K, so that gives some indication of how well Antonius had been doing at this particular table versus Isildur1.

Most every hand between these two began with a pot-sized raise from the small blind/button, and this was no exception, with Isildur1 raising to $3,000. Antonius reraised pot to $9,000 -- something that happened, say, every fourth or fifth hand or so. Then Isildur1 reraised pot again to $27,000. That was relatively rare to see, but would happen every once in a while.

Then Antoinius reraised again to $81,000. I’d been watching the pair play four tables for the last hour or so, and I hadn’t seen that happen once. After thinking for a while, Isildur1 made the call.

With the pot already $162K, the flop came . Antonius requested time, then bet $91,000 -- a little over half the pot. Isildur1 then also requested time, ultimately raising to $435,000. Antonius reraised to $779,000, and Isildur1 called with his remaining $162,473.

Antonius held for a five-high straight. Isildur1 turned over for a big draw to a higher straight. Two Dimes says Antonius is 54.6% to win here and Isildur1 45.4%. The turn was the and the river the , and the Finnish pro’s hand had held. Total rake for the hand? Fifty cents.

By the end of Saturday, Isildur1 would lose something in the neighborhood of $3.3 million -- $2.1 mil to Antonius, and $1.2 mil to Ivey. Apparently he was back on last night to take on both Dwan and Ivey once again, and along the way won a $1,127,955 pot himself (vs. Ivey). Reports are Isildur1 got back something like $650-850K or so yesterday, all told.

Pretty surreal stuff, watching more than a million dollars sliding across the virtual felt like this. These games still haven’t quite reached the level of those “Andy Beal vs. the Corporation” limit hold’em matches of 2001-2004 in which the stakes got as high as $100,000/$200,000. Single pots frequently exceeded a million clams in those games, and multi-day sessions ended with swings of $10-15 million. Still somethin’ to see, tho’.

Who is Isildur1? Will he fully recover from Saturday’s setback? Or is he destined to go busto? If not, and the Swede takes all the big boys’ money, where will it go? Finally, to pose a question Qureshi does a good job addressing, what does it all mean?

Questions without answers, as yet. But we’ll keep watching.

Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my $25 buy-in PLO games. It’s relatively rare, but once in a while I’ll get involved in a pot as big as $135. I only have to win 10,000 of those to make what Antonius did in that one hand Saturday night.

The Sklansky Minute and John Cage’s Indeterminacy

2009-11-20T08:13:00.014-05:00

Our buds Special K and Falstaff have a new podcast, peoples. It’s called the Gambling Tales Podcast and Episode No. 1 is now available. I’ve been up to my eyeballs with work, but am going to be listening to this sucker (finally) in the car this morning.

I’m reading that there is some November Nine talk in there -- some pre-final table predictions, I believe, so we can listen and admire their accuracy, or goof on their folly. There’s a tale about the origins of gambling. And there’s a conversation with Bad Blood. Check it out!

Speaking of podcasts, one of my favorites is still the Two Plus Two Pokercast, which remains one of the most consistently good ones for news, interviews, and the occasional strategy stuff. Of course, I’ve been a fan of Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz (the hosts) since their earlier show -- called Rounders, the Poker Show -- which they began way back in the spring of 2005. That one followed a similar format at the TwoPlusTwo show, other than usually running about an hour or so (if I recall) rather than the two-plus hours they normally go with this one.

The TwoPlusTwo show began in January 2008, and is now approaching its 100th episode. A regular feature of the show is something called the “Sklansky Minute” in which the highly regarded poker author, David Sklansky, offers strategy advice, theoretical broodings on human behavior, or perhaps a Zen koan.

I’m joking about the Zen koans, of course. Or maybe not. Here’s the beginning of a Sklansky Minute, this one from Episode 88 (the one with Tommy Angelo):

“Major tournaments have gone to great lengths nowadays to -- for lack of a better word -- prevent ‘hanky-panky.’ [Pause.] But there is one thing that they allow to this day that is an invitation to cheat. [Pause.] I speak of making change with your neighbor, a transaction that is rarely watched closely....”

And so forth. Those of you who have heard the segments are familiar with the Sklansky’s very deliberate, almost cautious-sounding style of speech. Not sure if he reads from a script or not, but the effect is the same regardless.

Anyhow, I had sort of a strange association come to me as I was listening to a recent Sklansky Minute, one which actually might help explain the “Zen koan”-like feel the segments sometimes have for me. While listening I was contemplating how there must be 60 or 70 of these little segments by now, and suddenly I found myself thinking of the avant-garde composer John Cage, in particular his work Indeterminacy, a Folkways recording of which was made (with David Tudor) in 1959.

The work has a long, interesting history which I’m not going to rehearse here. If you are curious, you can check out the website “About Indeterminacy” for more. The work is structured around a series of very short anecdotes or stories or musings or what have you that Cage wrote. On the recording, he reads 90 of them, while David Tudor provides random musical accompaniment on the piano (and various other noise-makers).

The pieces are of different lengths, yet all are read so as to fill one minute exactly. That means some are read quickly, while others contain lengthy pauses. To give you an idea of what a “Cage Minute” is like, here’s an example, the second one on the recording:

“You probably know the one about the two monks, but I’ll tell it anyway. They were walking one day when they came to a stream where a young lady was waiting, hoping that someone would help her across. Without hesitating, one of the monks picked her up and carried her across, putting her down safely on the other side. The two monks continued walking along, and after some time, the second one, unable to restrain himself, said to the first, ‘You know we’re not allowed to touch women. Why did you carry that woman across the stream?’ The first monk replied, ‘Put her down. I did two hours ago.’”

If you want to hear Cage reading them (and Tudor’s accompaniment), here is a YouTube clip featuring the first ten stories from Indeterminacy:

As I say, a few more weeks and Sklansky probably will have 90 of his “Minutes” to string together. Perhaps he should hire Tommy Angelo to provide musical accompaniment and make his own avant-garde recording?

Of course, maybe the prospect of listening to a long sequence of Sklansky Minutes doesn’t sound too thrilling. In which case, let me share another one of Cage’s stories from Indeterminacy:

“In Zen they say: If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, try it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. Eventually one discovers that it’s not boring at all, but very interesting.”

(EDIT [added 12/4/09]: Shortly after this post, Sklansky contributed an especially idiosyncratic Minute to an episode of the Pokercast, prompting a thread on the forums about the segment. Eventually *TT* posted a list of all of the Sklansky Minutes -- about forty of them, which you can see here.)

Raise. Stack. Own. Rebrand. Try Again.

2009-11-19T07:17:00.020-05:00

Vera and I do have a satellite dish and a hi-def teevee, but subscribe to the least expensive package available. So while we still get several dozen channels more than we need, we don’t get a few we occasionally want, including Fox Sports Net. Meaning I haven’t had the chance as of yet to see that Poker2Nite show hosted by Scott Huff and Joe Sebok which premiered last night.

As a longtime fan of the various podcasts produced by those two over the last three-plus years, I’m looking forward to seeing the show. I understand that UltimateBet -- the online poker site that signed Sebok as both a sponsored pro and a “media and operations consultant” back in September -- is the “presenting sponsor” for the show. Indeed, I believe episodes can be viewed over on the online site’s website, though I haven’t explored that yet.

Speaking of UltimateBet, you might have heard how the site has now “rebranded” to become UB.com. I first heard about that via Twitter when I saw Spaceman’s tweet “UltimateBet's rebranding reminds me of when evil tobacco co. Philip Morris became friendly-sounding ‘Altria.’”

Haven’t too much to say about that, really, other than to express the usual cynicism most of us probably share regarding marketing. Makes me think of that line Raymond Chandler once had Philip Marlowe say regarding chess -- a line from The Long Goodbye that usually gets misquoted as applying to poker -- noting that the game was “as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency.”

As was the case when UltimateBet merged with Absolute Poker on the Cereus Network back in July 2008, itself a kind of “rebranding,” all of the new slogans and messages bear the burdensome weight of that legacy of four-and-a-half years during which some players were playing against opponents who could see their hole cards -- i.e., the most massive cheating scandal in the short history of online poker.

So forgive me a little chuckle when reading the explanation of the new slogan “Raise. Stack. Own.” on the UB blog: “I will raise you. I will stack you. I will own you. -- This is how winning players approach the game, no mercy.” Can’t say hearing the site say “I will stack you. I will own you” really encourages me to come back.

Neither does the site’s continued lack of response to my requests regarding hand histories.

I’ve chronicled my quixotic efforts to get UltimateBet -- or UB -- to send me hand histories here before, the most recent synopsis appearing in a post from a couple of months ago titled “On Those UltimateBet Hand Mysteries, er... Histories.”

Following Sebok’s signing with UB, I had been momentarily encouraged to think I would eventually get my hand histories sent to me, given his statements that when signing with the site they had indicated to him that would be one of the first orders of business. I wrote the site (again) in late September and received a quick response saying my request had been “forwarded to our upper management for further review of your request.” Then on October 1, I got a note from a “Poker Security Manager” saying that while I was unaffected by the cheating, “I will work on getting your data to you ASAP.”

Three weeks passed with no response, so I replied to the email I’d been sent. It was returned as undeliverable. I’m thinking that when the fellow said “ASAP” he might have been calling me a sap.

I griped a little at the time on Twitter about once again having appeared to hit a dead end in the quest for my hand histories. And to Sebok’s credit he responded to my whimpering, saying he was glad to hear about the problem and was doing what he could to get UB to be more responsive to these things. He also mentioned, though, that he had come to realize his efforts in that regard were going to take him longer than he’d originally hoped they would.

As I’ve said before here, I’ve got all kinds of respect for the Cub. I do worry, though, that when it comes to this business of fixing UB, you be running the risk of being rebranded yourself.

For those interested in learning more of the skinny regarding the whole UltimateBet fiasco, check out Haley’s “Just Conjecturin’” series of posts on the subject, the most recent of which explains how Ted Forrest’s name (and a couple of others) should be added to the list of those who’ve had an ownership interest in the maligned online site. Links to Haley’s posts (thus far):

Just Conjecturin’, Part 1
Just Conjecturin’, Part 2: Sebok Signing (Update)
Just Conjecturin’, Part 2.5: Oh, Those UB Hand Histories
Just Conjecturin’, Part 3: The 56% Solution
Just Conjecturin’, Part 4: Inside the Excapsa Ownership Bloc
Just Conjecturin’, Part 5: If a Forrest is Silent, Does That Mean There Aren't Any Trees?

Kudos to Cada: WSOP Champ on Letterman

2009-11-18T06:48:00.013-05:00

You might have heard -- the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event champion Joe Cada appeared as a guest on “The Late Show with David Letterman” last night.

Kind of a coup for the WSOP and poker in general, really. And PokerStars, with whom Cada has signed.

Stars sent out a presser yesterday noting that “Cada is the first poker player to be on the show since 2004.” Not sure, but I think the reference might be to Annie Duke having been on the show after winning the Tournament of Champions as well as a bracelet in the $2,000 Omaha Hi-Lo Split event that year. I know Chris Moneymaker appeared on Letterman’s show in June 2003 -- following his Main Event victory, but prior to its airing on ESPN (and thus, really, before the resulting “boom”).

You’ll recall how last year WSOP Director of Corporate Communications Seth Palansky noted that efforts to get players from the November Nine to appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and “Ellen” had been unsuccessful. So you know folks like Palansky and others are proud -- justly -- to see Cada accept the invite and this moment in the spotlight.

The interview itself came in the second half-hour, following a monologue with a lot of Sarah Palin jokes (she was just on “Oprah,” apparently), the Top Ten Signs Your NFL Team Owner Is Nuts, and a couple of segments with Penelope Cruz. Finally, Cada was introduced, taking his seat as Paul Schaffer and the CBS Orchestra banged out the chorus to Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face” (surprise). Cada was wearing a spiffy black shirt and sporting his new WSOP Main Event bracelet, about which Letterman asked his first question.

“Yeah, that’s what you get when you win it,” said Cada, still grinning. He’ll probably be that way for a while.

Letterman’s questions demonstrated some familiarity with the WSOP, with poker’s increased popularity and changing status in the culture, and even his understanding of backing deals and other aspects of professional poker.

The host started out by referring to how the WSOP had been at Binion’s, and Cada explained that “after the Moneymaker year” it had moved over to the Rio. (2005 was actually the first year at the Rio, and 2006 the first year the WSOP ME final table was at the Rio.) Letterman then asked Cada how long he’d been playing poker, to which Cada responded “about four years,” then noted how he got started playing online when he turned 18. (Cada turns 22 today, in fact.)

Letterman followed by asking Cada how his parents felt about him playing poker. Cada explained that they weren’t thrilled. Interestingly, his mother is a blackjack dealer at a casino in Detroit, “so she relates everything the same as gambling,” said Cada. “She wasn’t too happy.”

Cada was asked what was the most he’d lost playing poker. “In a day?” Cada replied, and Letterman chuckled. The answer to that was $100,000, which Cada said had happened since July (after he’d already earned the $1.2 million-plus for making the final nine). Before that, his worst day was a $40,000 loss. But Cada explained he’d never lost more than he could afford. “It’s not like I’m in over my head,” he said.

Letterman asked more questions about how the WSOP and the Main Event worked, which Cada did a good job explaining, as well as about the mental and physical exhaustion caused by the ME and the “atmosphere” at the final table. The only real comedy came when Letterman addressed how poker’s cultural status has changed of late from a sketchy pursuit to a more respectable activity.

“All of a sudden poker is everywhere,” said Letterman. “And in my mind, the winner of a big pot... they find dead in a rental car.” As the audience laughed, Letterman asked “That doesn’t happen anymore?” Cada did a good job explaining how poker was indeed generally unlike what one sees in the movies, and that poker is “a fun thing to do, socially.”

Cada was circumspect when Letterman inquired about backing arrangements and whether he had to split his winnings with anyone. “Something along those lines,” said Cada, perhaps prudently avoiding sharing details of his arrangement with Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy, who reportedly had at least 50% of Cada’s action for the ME. “That’s where the rental car comes in,” Letterman cracked.

And that was it. Less than five minutes, but as I say, a coup of sorts for the WSOP and for poker. And Cada should be commended for conducting himself well and taking on the daunting responsibility of trying to represent poker to the rest of the world. Sort of stuff looks a lot easier than it is -- getting interviewed in front of a sizable studio audience and before an audience of millions. If you think about it, that test last week in which Cada had to perform before the crowd at the Penn & Teller Theater at the Rio -- and the ESPN cameras -- probably didn’t hurt as a kind of preparation.

Of course, last night Cada couldn’t really rely on getting lucky to do well.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

2009-11-17T10:12:00.006-05:00

I like those funny phrases that rewrite clichés or popular sayings. Like saying “it’s easy as falling off a piece of cake.” Or “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Sort of like how New England did versus Indianapolis Sunday night, much to my dismay after having picked the Pats in Dr. Pauly’s Pub Pool. Criminy!

Speaking of wins turned into losses, I had kind of a rough session of pot-limit Omaha on Saturday (six-handed, $25 maximum buy-in). Started especially well, and I was up nearly two buy-ins, then hit a bad stretch where I’d fallen back to even, then into the red, then even farther into the deeper, bloodier red after a couple more hard luck hands.

On my way down, I had not one but two of those hands in which the money had gotten all in on the turn, a river card came, and I was genuinely surprised to see the chips sliding my opponent’s way. Not because of any hubris regarding my invincibility -- how could I lose?! -- but rather, in the split-second swiftness of the online game, I hadn’t been able to read the board quickly enough to anticipate my having lost the pot.

There should be a name for such a hand. Not necessarily talking about a “bad beat,” although this sort of hand can be that, too. What I’m talking about is that (hopefully) somewhat rare phenomenon of getting to the end of a hand and not realizing until after the dealer (virtual or otherwise) is sending the chips in the other direction that one has lost.

Perhaps you have turned an ace-high spade flush, you and your opponent push all in, and you see he has a lesser flush. Then the river brings what looks like a harmless fourth spade. You smile, anticipating a nice profit. Then -- after having mentally registered a win and experienced the pleasure that results -- you notice that river gave your foe a straight flush.

You wince. Criminy! It’s like you’ve lost the hand twice or something.

To describe just one of my two examples from Saturday, I was sitting in the cutoff with $48.60. The player in the big blind, Fisherman, was one of those can’t-wait-to-gamble types you see at the PLO tables now and again. Especially on the weekends, it seems. Very loose, and apparently not too aware that, say, flopping two pair ain’t always the bee’s knees. He’d already lost two buy-ins in short order, and here, on his third try, had developed a bit more patience, lasting several orbits and sitting with $26.40 when the hand began.

There had been one limper and I limped as well with . A raise was probably in order there, but I actually was looking to play hands in position versus Fisherman, and since he seemed to have learned how to fold from the blinds, I wanted to make sure he’d stick around for the flop. The others folded to Fisherman who checked, and so three of us saw the flop come .

Nice flop, that. Fit my hand like a glove. It checked to me and I bet the pot, then Fisherman check-raised to $3.40 total. The third player folded and I just called. I figured Fisherman either for the same straight, or perhaps a set (or even two pair). If the turn is safe, I thought, I’ll push then. The turn was the . I still held the nuts. Fisherman quickly bet the pot ($7.30), I raised pot, and Fisherman called with his remaining chips.

Our hands were revealed, and he had . First thought was, well, damn, we have essentially the same hand. Next instinct was to check his hand for spades, and when I saw he was not on the flush draw, I relaxed. Stupidly.

The river brought the , and when I expected the pot to be split, I sadly -- and somewhat confusedly -- watched as all of the chips moved in his direction. What gives? Then I realized, Fisherman had a full house -- jacks full of tens.

The Two Dimes calculator was down this morning, so I ran the sucker through the one over at Card Player. On that flop, we were nearly 94% to tie, and in fact I had a slight advantage with my backdoor flush possibility. After the turn, we were exactly 92.5% to tie, and he had three outs to win (the case jack, or one of the two remaining tens).

The online game moves quickly, of course, and I did have two tables up. So it is understandable how I’d failed to see the faint possibility he could steal my half of the pot from me on the river. Indeed, this sort of situation probably occurs much more online than live, although it can happen live, too -- especially in Omaha -- where a person who thinks he’s won has to be shown he has not.

Not nearly as bad as misreading a hand partway through and thus mistakenly committing chips while way behind or drawing dead (oof, thought I had a straight, and I only had ten-high!). But still, there’s a special sort of pain there, thinking you’ve won (or split, in this case), then realizing you haven’t.

I suppose we’re talking about a version of dramatic irony, wherein one of the characters -- me -- is not fully aware of what is going on, and thus the drama is produced by this divide between what I think is happening and what is really happening. “I win! Wait. What? I lose?”

So what do we call this sort of hand? The Bummer? The Blind Spot? The Letdown?

Or how about a Jaws hand? Indeed, think of the movie -- one example after another of dramatic irony, there. The swimmer thinks it’s just a harmless, fun, recreational activity she’s pursuing. But the audience knows better. Maybe we can even make an acronym out of it? Judged A Win, Stupidly?

I can think of another good reason to call it a Jaws hand. It bites.

The Green-Eyed Monster

2009-11-16T07:03:00.010-05:00

Noticed over the weekend that a new thread had popped up on Two Plus Two begun by the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event champion, Joe Cada. Cada’s post begins “Lets first by saying if anyone thinks I'm denying I got lucky at the final table then im not.”

The rest of Cada’s message is a bit difficult to parse, but he appears to be both acknowledging his having been the beneficiary of some good cards on his way to winning the Main Event while defending himself as a skillful player who made some good decisions, too.

“Did I run like god at the final table 100 percent correct,” he admits. Then, referring to that big hand versus Antoine Saout (Hand No. 272), Cada writes “Now 22 when your playing 3handed opening basically every pot and the person to the left of you is really aggr and has 3bet a lot and you have 40 bb with tons of fold equity noting 1hand he thought up to 5min getting it in preflop to a button 4bet after he 3bet with ak in bb is not bad.”

Like I said, a bit difficult to parse. More than a bit, actually. “Some may not understand this but oh well,” adds Cada. Not sure if he’s referring to the play or the way he’s described it.

The post generated many responses, with some congratulating Cada for his win while others took it as bait to issue further challenges regarding Cada’s poker playing ability. The responses are somewhat interesting, I guess, but more intriguing to me is the fact that Cada felt the need to defend himself at all. His post obviously responds to other threads and reactions to last week’s final table, particularly those that characterized Cada and his opponent Darvin Moon as somehow undeserving of having landed the top two spots in poker’s biggest tourney.

The thread made me think of something I’d heard on the Casino City Gang podcast late last week. Have been enjoying that weekly show -- hosted by Vin Narayanan, Gary Trask, and Dan Igo -- quite a bit. In this most recent episode (the 11/12/09) episode, the trio shared reactions to the November Nine. Toward the end of the discussion, Trask noted how disappointing it was that so few of the top pros -- many of whom had been there on Saturday -- did not come back to the Penn & Teller Theater on Monday night for the heads-up portion.

That led to some speculation about why so few were there for the finale, with Narayanan suggesting that some of “these pro players are stung by the fact that they are not winning the Main Event,” and that until one of them does, it will continue to be “a big sore point among the top professional players.”

Narayanan then talks a bit about Mike “The Mouth” Matusow, who had been there to see Phil Ivey bust on Saturday, but did not come back on Monday. Matusow did send some tweets on Monday, however, showing that he was following the action. Narayanan notes how Matusow “was just killing” Cada and Moon on Twitter, “talking about how the two biggest luckboxes of the tournament were sitting there playing for [the championship] and that poker was not a game of skill anymore.”

Indeed, over @TheMouthMatusow the pro starts by saying “I can't go see the two worst players of the final 9 play for pokers biggest prize its too embarrassing,” then adds “These 2 hu os a new low point for poker as any kind of skilled game so om staying home gl to both.” He goes on to call Cada “a stone idiot” who has “no clue how to play poker,” before finally signing off with less-than-sincere sounding congratulations and a final message that “this is a lesson on bow not to play hu poker.”

Kind of an interesting phenomenon, the way that this year’s final table generated this sort of response. Of course, it happens just about every year -- doesn’t it? Not sure what I think of the whole “pros are jealous because they aren’t winning” argument, but I think we’re all pretty familiar with how one poker player’s success at the tables tends to elicit others’ envy. One could argue there is something in human nature that makes us that way. As Jonathan Swift once wrote in his elegy to himself “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift” (1731), “What poet would not grieve to see / His brethren write as well as he? / But rather than they should excel, / He’d wish his rivals all in hell.”

Speaking of good writers, I just finished Vicky Coren’s For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair with Poker this weekend, and it is absolutely terrific. Very smart, witty, even “literary.” I plan to say more about the book here eventually, but I will share one passage she includes about poker players and “schadenfreude” -- that weird, German-derived word that refers to our tendency to derive pleasure from others’ misfortune.

“Poker players are the bitterest, most resentful, most grudging, most jealous humans on the planet,” writes Coren. “They enjoy nothing more than schadenfreude. They hate nothing worse than someone else’s success. They are happiest when describing a huge pot lost by a regular opponent. They don’t care who won it.... That delights them.”

“God, I love them,” Coren adds, a kind of winking punchline to the discussion.

And really, you have to. ’Cos that’s how people -- especially poker players -- are, for the most part. So all you winners out there, don’t expect everyone else to rejoice in yr triumphs.

Pollack Moves On, WSOP Commish Seat Open

2009-11-13T07:44:00.012-05:00

From a poker news perspective it has certainly been a WSOP-centric week. The November Nine finally played out, with the final table shown over on ESPN. Sounds as though the ratings for that FT broadcast dipped slightly from last year’s November Nine show, but essentially held steady. In 2008, the rating was 1.9, which meant about 1.9 million households and 2.36 million average viewers. In 2009, the rating was 1.8 -- a little over 1.8 million households and 2.1 million average viewers. Of course, both FTs represent a big jump from 2007, when the rating was just 1.4.

A little surprising for most, I think, that this year’s November Nine -- with Phil Ivey, Jeff Shulman, and a few other personalities/stories to generate added interest -- didn’t improve on last year’s total. But perhaps our perspective is blinkered a bit, for a couple of reasons.

One might simply be the fact that a poker show can only attract so much attention; that is to say, there might well be a ceiling of sorts when it comes to the number of viewers even the best possible poker show can attract -- a possibility some don’t necessarily want to consider.

There’s another reason, though, why I think we tend to see a lack of obvious growth as a negative. Having witnessed the recent “boom” in poker, we came to expect big, dramatic jumps from year to year, and when they don’t come, the resulting impression is unfavorable, even if holding steady ain’t necessarily such a bad thing, big picture-wise.

The week concludes with yet another big WSOP story, this one regarding the Commish, Jeffrey Pollack. Pollack came on the scene just as the “boom” was booming, and has been at the helm ever since. He has announced that today will be his last day as Commissioner of the World Series of Poker.

Pollack came to the WSOP from the professional sports world. He started The Sports Business Daily in the mid-90s, a trade publication covering the business side of sports that still exists as an important “insider” voice today -- the sort of thing that industry leaders routinely consult for its commentary and reporting.

Not surprising, then, that from there Pollack would move over into the business of sports, first as a communications consultant to the NBA. Pollack began working with the NBA during the 1998-99 lockout, and eventually was named the league’s Vice President of Marketing & Corporate Communications. Then Pollack moved over to NASCAR, where for five years he held a similar position -- Managing Director of Broadcasting and New Media -- in which he was heavily involved with the promotion and marketing of the sport.

In 2004, Harrah’s Entertainment purchased Binion’s Horseshoe, which included taking over the World Series of Poker. The following year Harrah’s relocated the fast-growing Series from the humble downtown casino to the spacious ballrooms of the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino (although the WSOP ME final table was played back at Binion’s in 2005 as a kind of last waltz).

Among its other initial moves, Harrah’s hired Pollack away from NASCAR to become the Vice President of Marketing for the WSOP, and so he joined the circus right as the “boom” was happening. Then, at the start of 2006, Harrah’s created a new position -- a Commissioner of the WSOP -- and named Pollack as the first occupant of that seat.

That first year -- 2006 -- was the WSOP’s biggest ever in terms of Main Event entrants (8,773). Then came the surreptitious passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Coincidentally, it was also Friday the 13th (10/13/06) when then President George W. Bush signed that sucker into law.

The “boom” was over, but the WSOP would still continue to grow, and Pollack certainly deserves a lot of credit on that front. Poker is a much harder sell than is basketball or stock car racing. Our buddy Otis wrote a terrific piece last summer over on Tao of Poker in which he did a nifty job characterizing the difficulty of Pollack’s task.

“Pollack has a big league ‘My Fair Lady’ job to do on the World Series and he has to make sure it sticks,” writes Otis. “He's working with a world that polite society doesn't want to admit exists and he has to put enough makeup on it to make sure it can handle the occasional smeared mascara. And he has to do all of it without painting the WSOP into a whore.”

Pollack faced other challenges as well, most particularly from the old guard who regarded the WSOP changing from a relatively small, private gathering of friends to a massive, public spectacle with either discomfort, frustration, or outward disgust. It was easy for those critics to target the new guy Pollack, though in some respects he wasn’t necessarily the one deserving of such invective. Like others, I, too, have misgivings about the seeming “corporatization” of poker and the WSOP, but all things considered found Pollack a highly positive figure whose contributions to (and management of) the WSOP’s growth was especially constructive.

I also found Pollack an amiable and very forthright guy whenever I heard him interviewed in podcasts -- something he did on many occasions. Dr. Pauly notes how the Commish never gave him any indication that he couldn’t write whatever he wanted when gonzo-reporting on the WSOP, and while I can’t pretend to speak for everyone, I think most others in the media probably shared that appreciation.

I remember last summer during one of the dinner breaks sitting in the Amazon Room having a Capriotti’s sandwich and surfing online. Read a tweet from Pollack noting that he was watching Game 7 of the NHL finals on the other side of the Amazon, so I walked over and joined him to see the Penguins beat the Red Wings in a thrilling finish.

“Have a seat,” he said invitingly as I arrived, indicating an available chair.

Indeed, that was the message Pollack most earnestly tried to convey time and time again as the WSOP Commish. You’ll recall the Day 1d debacle this year, when players who’d come for seats in the Main Event had to be turned away, a day that I’m going to guess was Pollack’s most difficult during the nearly four years of his tenure. Because really, the message one always heard Pollack trying to convey -- either explicitly or as a subtext -- was that when it came to the WSOP, everyone was invited.

Best of luck to Pollack, and to whomever ends up taking his now empty seat.

* * * * *
By the way, my second Betfair piece appears this morning -- an interview with James McManus. Check it out. Will probably move on to write about other, non-book related topics over there soon, but will always be including book reviews (and hopefully more interviews) as well.

Have a good weekend, all.

Reading & Writing

2009-11-12T09:18:00.016-05:00

Had a long, long day of “real” life applesauce yesterday. Yea, I’m talking about the “day” job, which as of late has been turning into the “night” job, too, I’m sorry to report. Don’t plan to go into detail here -- as I said to a friend recently when the subject came up, the only thing worse than a bad beat story is to hear someone whimpering about his or her job. Suffice to say yr humble gumshoe has a lot else he’d rather be doing these days.

Changes are a afoot, though. Like hard-boiled writers do, I’ll leave that as a cliffhanger for now. Let’s turn the page.

Speaking of, for those who like hard-boiled fiction, my non-poker-related detective novel, Same Difference, is available for purchase. Makes a great Christmas gift! Am still waiting for it to turn up over on Amazon and other sites. (Thought that would have happened by now, but am still in limbo on that front.) Meanwhile, you can get it directly from Lulu by clicking here.

Big thanks to those who have picked it up already, and especially those who’ve read the sucker and sent along nice feedback. It’s a first novel, and I’m much encouraged to take what I’ve learned on this one as I set to work on a second.

The fact is, I have been thinking a lot recently about books and authors and the publishing world these days, mainly thanks to the books I happened to be reading. I’ve had the opportunity to review James McManus’s new one in a couple of places, Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker, including over at Betfair where I’ve begun a new weekly column. As I mentioned last week, I was able to interview McManus as well, and will be posting that interview as a follow-up piece over at Betfair tomorrow.

Other current poker reads at the moment are also in the non-strategy category. Am moving through Vicky Coren’s For Richer, For Poorer: A Love Affair with Poker, a smart, funny, literary memoir telling the story of Coren’s life and poker career. Coren does have an EPT title and other poker achievements to report, but she’s also a genuinely gifted writer, thus making her book especially enjoyable. Fans of McManus, Alvarez, Holden, et al. should really like this one, I’d think.

Also have just recently cracked open a copy of Doyle Brunson’s recently published autobiography, The Godfather of Poker, written with Mike Cochran. Have only glanced at the contents, but first appearances suggest a comprehensive telling of Texas Dolly’s story, which I imagine will include several familiar anecdotes -- especially for those who have read his Super/System or other books that include Brunson yarns -- as well as new material. By the way, the Entities over at Wicked Chops have interviewed Brunson about the book -- check it out.

The book is a handsomely bound hardback with what’s called “rough trim,” meaning that when the book is closed the pages have a jagged edge -- the kind of thing you see sometimes with older books, but not so much these days.

As I was reading about on the Gamblers Bookshop blog last month, some might think the use of this cut “looks like it’s defective but that’s the way the publisher wanted it.” I kind of like it (see pic), which along with the cover photo kind of lends the book a stately, dignified appearance that seems to suit Brunson’s status in the poker world.

As understood by just about everybody but Joan Rivers, that is.

Will be reviewing both Coren and Brunson’s autobiographies in the coming weeks elsewhere, though I’ll say something here about them as well, I imagine. Like I say, reading these books -- all of which can be regarded as the end results of long-term, carefully-nurtured meaningful projects for the respective writers, has gotten me thinking more and more about “the writer’s life.”

And how such a life seems to me like it might be worth living. (Stay tuned!)

Looking Back: 2009 WSOP November Nine on ESPN

2009-11-11T07:45:00.006-05:00

Thoroughly enjoyed ESPN’s rapidly-produced, two-and-a-half hour repackaging of the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event final table last night. Liked the features and rhythm of the thing. Thought Norman Chad had a few genuine zingers in there, adding to the fun. My favorite was probably when Steve Begleiter put in the first reraise in that infamous Hand No. 90 versus Darvin Moon, and Chad quipped “That’s a big bet, particularly in this economy.” That was some good funny.

Did appreciate the extra half-hour, mostly taken up with the heads-up battle in which Joe Cada outlasted Darvin Moon. Actually by the very end of the show I was starting to feel like it didn’t really need to be much longer than it was. Perhaps having followed the action so closely as it happened made me less eager to see every hand again, but I think two-and-a-half hours of this sort of thing is probably plenty.

Liked the sportsmanship at the very end quite a bit. Also thought Phil Ivey came off as the coolest cat ever.

Was also thinking quite a bit during the show of the whole “luck-vs.-skill” contest once again, wondering now and then how it all might have appeared to those less familiar with what happened during the 364 hands and/or those who are less versed in poker, generally speaking. Did the selection of hands make it look like poker was a game of skill? Or did it come off as a drama-filled series of coin-flips in which chance ruled?

One of the most interesting aspects of poker, actually, is how difficult it is to say definitively whether in any given hand “luck” or “skill” prevailed. Outcomes are driven both by players’ actions and the cards dealt. In fact, two people watching (or playing) the same hand may likely come away with differing opinions about whether a hand was skillfully played or “played itself.” And it goes without saying that a person’s judgment is also highly influenced by his or her own poker-playing experience and knowledge.

I made a note last night of which hands were being shown. Of the 364 total hands, we got to see 32 on the telecast. Not going to rehearse all of the details of each hand here (you can read about them further on the PokerNews live blog), but here is a list with hand numbers and brief reminders of the action. You decide whether in each hand “luck” or “skill” seemed more important:

Hand No. 11 -- Moon limp-reraises with from late position, forcing Schaffel to fold pocket nines in the big blind
Hand No. 14 -- Ivey’s all-in shove with pocket kings forces folds from Cada (pocket tens) and Shulman (pocket fives)
Hand No. 44 -- Akenhead survives going all in with K-Q versus Buchman’s A-K by spiking a queen on the river
Hand No. 45 -- Moon’s crazy play with A-4 versus Saout’s sorta crazy play with J-2 in which the latter fortunately flopped two pair; “I messed up big time,” said Moon afterwards
Hand No. 53 -- Cada’s loses a lot with versus Moon after flopping a flush draw, then not getting there
Hand No. 54 -- Schaffel doubles up with pocket aces versus Akenhead’s pocket kings
Hand No. 59 -- Akenhead eliminated when his 3-3 can’t catch up to Schaffel’s 9-9
Hand No. 68 -- Schaffel eliminated with pocket aces versus Buchman’s pocket kings when a king flops, then Buchman makes quads on the turn
Hand No. 90 -- Moon’s crazy flop fold getting 8-to-1 or something versus Begleiter (see discussion here); Moon did have , it turned out, and Begleiter (overs, straight outs, and nut flush draw); and did Moon tell his wife he had queens afterwards???
Hand No. 92 -- Shulman folds pocket nines to Ivey’s all-in reraise with K-Q offsuit
Hand No. 106 -- With ace-high, Ivey pushes Begleiter off his pocket sevens on the river after a scary group of community cards had arrived
Hand No. 112 -- Ivey raises UTG with pocket jacks, Saout reraises from the button with pocket sevens, and Ivey folds (I believe this was the very last hand before the dinner break)
Hand No. 122 -- Shulman takes a big chunk from Cada when his A-K outlasts Cada’s A-J
Hand No. 131 -- Cada survives with pocket fours against Ivey’s
Hand No. 153 -- Saout and Begleiter get all of the Frenchman’s chips in on an flop; Saout has the flush draw, and Begleiter a pair of eights; the flush comes
Hand No. 175 -- Moon’s A-Q eliminates Ivey who had A-K after a queen flops; loved Ivey’s line when the turn brought a trey: “Close.”
Hand No. 187 -- Moon again uses A-Q to eliminate Begleiter, whose pocket queens turned to mush after an ace came on the river
Hand No. 195 -- Cada survives, spiking a set with pocket treys versus Shulman’s J-J
Hand No. 199 -- Cada’s pocket rockets survive versus Moon’s K-9 offsuit
Hand No. 236 --Shulman eliminated when his pocket sevens lose race to Saout’s A-9
Hand No. 259 --Buchman wins a big chunk of Saout’s stack after heavy betting on a ten-high flop; Saout had a ten, but Buchman had the better hand with A-A
Hand No. 264 -- Buchman loses a bunch back to Saout with A-Q versus the Frenchman’s A-K
Hand No. 271 -- Moon () eliminates Buchman (), turning a king
Hand No. 272 -- Cada survives, spiking a set with pocket deuces versus Cada’s Q-Q
Hand No. 276 -- Saout eliminated with pocket eights versus Cada’s A-K after Cada rivers a king
Hand No. 277 -- Moon slowplays pocket queens in first hand of heads up; ends up winning a decently-sized pot versus Cada’s 9-9
Hand No. 288 -- Moon check-raises with air on flop, then turns a queen to make top pair, ends up getting Cada to call a big value bet on end
Hand No. 293 -- Cada turns top two pair with and forces Moon to fold his fourth-best pair on the river
Hand No. 323 -- Moon pushes Cada off of his A-Q with a preflop four-bet; Moon says “I had a monster,” but it was A-J
Hand No. 347 -- Moon and Cada both have J-9 offsuit, but Moon’s aggressive betting gets him the pot on the turn
Hand No. 356 -- With the board , Cada makes the big call with all of his chips with ; Moon has , and Cada’s hand holds up
Hand No. 364 -- Cada wins the bracelet when his pocket nines outlast Moon’s

So what was your impression? Or your impression of how other viewers might have seen the show? Does poker look like roulette, or chess?

(Photos courtesy the great FlipChip, natch.)

Comeback Kid Cada 2009 WSOP Main Event Champ

2009-11-10T09:37:00.011-05:00

Sat up into the wee hours following online that there heads-up clash last night. Went much longer than most observers -- including yr humble gumshoe -- had guessed it would. Over three hours, I believe, with Joe Cada finally outlasting Darvin Moon in a genuinely compelling, hard fought battle for the bracelet.
(Photos in this post by the great FlipChip, natch.)

Had great fun following the coverage on PokerNews, reading all the tweets, and listening to the Bluff Magazine audio. Usually I’d first read insta-reports of each action on Twitter, then hear David Chicotsky, Phil Hellmuth, Joe Sebok, and a rotating group of others comment on the Bluff feed, then read the short hand narratives by FerricRamsium and Donnie Peters. I’d also occasionally skip over to Dr. Pauly’s live blog, the ESPN blog kept by Andrew Feldman, the PokerStars blog, and a few other sites, too, to help fill out the scene. (Oh, and while yr poking around those links, check out F-Train's “November Nine Errata” for a few more items of interest.)

Altogether gave a pretty good sense of what was happening, although I’ll certainly be intrigued to watch what ESPN puts together for tonight’s show, too.

As I say, the action last night was fairly gripping, I thought. Some high-drama hands in there, as well as enough back-and-forthing for some thought-provoking patterns to emerge.

It appeared on the very first hand that Moon had missed a great opportunity -- and perhaps displayed yet another example of awkward (or flat-out bad) play. Moon chose to limp in from the small blind/button, and we’d soon learn he held pocket queens. Cada then raised to 3.5 million from the big blind, and Moon called. The pair managed to put another 20 million each in the middle on the next two streets, but both checked the river, at which point Cada showed pocket nines. The two kings and one ace among the community cards surely kept all of Moon’s chips from going into the middle in that one, and it seemed clear that had he gone ahead and committed them preflop, Cada probably would’ve come along.

In other words, it looked like from the first hand that Moon should have doubled up and taken the chip lead away from Cada, but instead he’d only closed the gap to about 110 million to 85 million. It also looked like the night was going to be over quickly.

But that didn’t happen. For the next ten hands Moon chipped away, then took the lead in Hand No. 12 of heads up. Cada raised his button to 2.5 million for the sixth straight time, and Moon called. The flop came , Moon checked, Cada continued for 3.5 million, and Moon check-raised to 8.5 million. Cada called. Both checked the turn, then when the river came , Moon bet 7.25 million and Cada called him. Moon showed -- the flop check-raise had been with air, and he’d paired up on the turn -- and Cada mucked.

Was partly happenstance, but somehow Moon had gotten the lead without going all in. Not once had Moon been all in with his tourney life at risk for the entire WSOP Main Event. That streak was still alive! And would remain so until the very last hand of the tournament, in fact.

After those first dozen hands it had become clear that Moon (a) was not going to play a passive, easily exploitable game, and (b) was not appearing to be playing an orthodox or “standard” game, either. Won’t presume to judge how well either player played without seeing hole cards, but it certainly seemed that despite Moon’s own protestations that he’d had practically zero experience at heads up, he was providing Cada -- who plays mostly heads-up online -- a genuine challenge.

Cada would soon take the lead back, though. And by the time they took their first break of the night (after 52 hands played) they were essentially dead even. Over the next dozen hands Moon took several sizable pots, and suddenly he was sitting with a nearly 3-to-1 chip advantage with 145 million to Cada’s almost 50 million. Cada pushed all in before the flop on Hand No. 70 of heads up, but Moon declined. Then in Hand No. 80 came what was really the pivotal moment of the match.

The blinds at that point were 600,000/1.2 million (with a 200,000 ante). Cada raised to 3 million from the button, and Moon called. The flop came , and both checked. The turn brought the , and after Moon checked Cada bet 3 million. Moon check-raised all in, and after a long think Cada made the call with . Moon showed -- an open-ended straight draw. The river was the , and Cada had rebounded to take the lead once more.

An interesting play by Moon, and it sounded like Cada nearly let go of his hand, but he ultimately made the big call. There was a little break right after that hand, and one could hear the two players talking in the background of the Bluff Magazine audio broadcast. Cada could be heard sincerely complimenting Moon’s play, making reference to the fact that he plays a lot of heads up and that Moon compared favorably to his usual competition. Struck me as a pretty mature-sounding thing to say for the kid from Michigan who doesn’t turn 22 until later this month. Also humble, providing a stark contrast to the commentary by Hellmuth in the foreground.

Speaking of the Poker Brat, he was just 24 when he won the 1989 WSOP, holding pocket nines for the winning hand. And as it would turn out, Cada would also have pocket nines -- -- in Hand No. 88 of heads up, what would turn out to be the last hand of the night.

Again Cada raised to 3 million from the button, Moon reraised to 8 million, Cada pushed, and Moon called with . The board ran out , and Cada became the youngest Main Event champ ever.

After a wild Saturday night/Sunday morning full of surprising suckouts and some pretty obvious missteps, it seems that Monday’s denouement helped improve the reputations of both players as skillful competitors. While each surely benefited from good fortune, sometimes in highly dramatic fashion, both showed they can play Texas hold’em, and so in that battle between luck and skill I was alluding to yesterday, skill did (in a sense) perhaps “win out.”

I’m not alone, I don’t think, in liking both of these guys. Probably somewhat better for poker that the one who seems primed to join the professional circuit -- and not the fellow content to go back into the woods with his chainsaw (as amiable as he is) -- ended up on top.

Am thinking more and more that next year I might just have to angle a way to get back out to Vegas in November to witness this spectacle go down. As I mentioned already, in 2008 I didn’t really have much of a pull to be there once they finally resumed the sucker. But this year I did, and I don’t think it was just because of the prospect of being there to see a Phil Ivey victory.

Yeah, as fun as the online coverage was to follow, I think it would be fun to see the November Nine with my own peepers. And my peeps.

2009 WSOP Main Event Heads Up: Moon v. Cada and/or Luck v. Skill

2009-11-09T07:10:00.011-05:00

One more day of play at the Rio, and the 40th World Series of Poker will at long last be completed. (Had to share that cool FlipChip pic from Saturday night there to the left.) What a lo-o-o-o-ong, strange trip it’s been.

Joe Cada and Darvin Moon are scheduled to begin their heads-up battle at 10 p.m. Vegas time, although if things go the way they usually do cards won’t be in the air until some time after that.

For those of us here on the east coast, then, that’s after 1 a.m. Would mean a late, late night, but I’m thinking I’ll probably follow along anyhow. Could be wrong, but I am encouraged to stay up by the belief that the match might well be a short one. Gotta couple of reasons for thinking that.

When play resumes, Cada will have 135,950,000 chips and Moon 58,850,000. (Interestingly, Moon has almost exactly the same stack as he had when the final table began, when his 58,930,000 gave him a huge lead over his eight opponents.) They are in the middle of Level 39, with blinds of 500,000/1,000,000 and 150,000 antes. Not sure exactly, but it looks as though they have about a half-hour or so left at this level, after which the price to play Level 40 will be 600,000/1.2 million blinds and 200,000 antes.

Last year Peter Eastgate and Ivan Demidov came back on Monday night to Level 37 (300,000/600,000/75,000), so they are a little farther along in the schedule this time around. Last year players in the Main Event began with 20,000 chips, as opposed to 30,000 in 2009. There were 6,844 entrants in 2008, meaning the final two players had a little over 137 million between them. A total of 6,494 came out in 2009, and so Cada and Moon have just under 195 million on the table.

Was fussing over this some last year -- this business of calculating the “M” of each player here at the start of heads-up play. Remember, a player’s “M” (from Dan Harrington’s Harrington on Hold’em books) is the total “cost” to play one orbit, i.e., the blinds and antes. So here we’re talking about the small blind + the big blind + two antes. Harrington’s “M” figure doesn’t really have the same significance for heads up as it does in full-ring play, of course, although it does provide a way to talk about relative stack sizes between tourneys.

Last year Eastgate had an “M” of approximately 76 and Demidov about 55 when they began, and those two went for 105 more hands. Over at the WSOPE Main Event in 2008, John Juanda had an “M” of around 63 and Stanislav Alekhin of close to 41 when they began heads up, and those two went on for an epic 242 hands (like seven hours or something). That difference proves that “M” doesn’t necessarily help us predict how long heads up will go, since when the “M” is above a certain point how long they play mostly depends on players’ styles and their approach to the endgame.

For comparison’s sake, when they return tonight Cada will have an “M” of just over 75 and Moon just under 33. So theoretically, these guys could go on for a hundred or even two hundred hands, but I ain’t seeing that happening.

One difference from the 2008 WSOP and WSOPE Main Events is the fact that Cada has a more than two-to-one chip advantage here. That alone decreases the likelihood that we’ll see the sort of patience demonstrated in the other examples, although again -- theoretically -- it doesn’t mean they can’t be patient.

However, here I think it is clear that the amateur Moon is not interested in trying to outplay Cada after the flop very much, and so will be encouraged both by his chip disadvantage and skill disadvantage to start shoving right away. In fact, I’d be very surprised if Moon did not begin moving all in from the very first hands tonight. (That said, we’ve been surprised by Moon before!)

Cada certainly improves his chances if he shows some patience and waits for a decent hand with which to accept that first invitation to an all-in challenge, although if Moon does force the issue this way and try to negate (or at least mute) Cada’s skill advantage, the kid is still going to have to have a hand hold up to win the sucker.

We might well see some post-flop poker tonight, but it appears more likely it’s gonna be flipping coins. Moon’ll have to win that first one in order to have a second go. If he does, then Cada will have to win the next one in order to survive. Both made it this far via a combination of skill and luck, but it sure seems that luck will prevail tonight.

Or not. Which is why I’ll be staying up to see what happens. Will be truckin’ over to PokerNews’ live reporting page as usual, where FerricRamsium and Donnie Peters will chronicle the hands, and Gloria Balding will interview the players.

See you there!

2009 WSOP Main Event: Cada Can Do, But Moon Has Shot

2009-11-08T11:00:00.012-05:00

Wild finish this morning at the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event, with the Michigan youngster Joe Cada hitting hands at the right time and the Maryland logger Darvin Moon likewise running good and surviving some sketchy plays to make it to heads up.

Looked for a while like Antoine Saout and Eric Buchman -- who finished third and fourth, respectively -- were both poised to be there for the tourney’s conclusion on Monday night. But both suffered some misfortune, thereby paving the way for Cada and Moon.

Much will be made of how Cada, whose whopping stack of almost 136 million means he presently has over two-thirds of the chips, survived not one but two all-in confrontations in which he had the worst pocket pair and flopped a set. The first came in Hand No. 195 versus Jeff Shulman. Cada, the table’s short stack at the time with less than 11 million, open-shoved from the small blind with pocket treys only to get instacalled by Shulman who had pocket jacks in the BB. A trey flopped, and Cada stuck around.

Then, once they were down to three-handed, Cada survived in similar fashion in one of the last hands of the night-slash-morning. After Moon folded his button, Cada opened with a raise to 2.55 million from the SB (blinds 500,000/1,000,000). Saout reraised to 7.3 million, Cada thought for a while then announced he was all in, committing his entire 39 million or so. Saout quickly called, showing pocket queens to Cada’s lowly pair of deuces. But a third deuce flopped, Cada’s hand held up, and a little later he’d finish Saout off when his A-K outraced the Frenchman’s pocket eights.

Sometime earlier in the night Cada had survived yet another all in with pocket fours against Phil Ivey’s A-8. So them baby pairs served the baby-faced Cada quite well.

Meanwhile, the not-so-baby faced Moon made several strange plays during the course of the 276 hands played -- already a new record for the longest WSOP Main Event final table in history. (Photo via Katkin for Pokerati.) The forums have already seized upon some of those early hands, such as the early one in which he stumbled into doubling Saout up while holding A-4, or the bizarre one versus Steven Begleiter when he check-raised the former Bear Stearns exec for almost all his chips, then amazingly folded after Begleiter pushed.

(Incidentally, check out this silly article over on Bloomberg about Begleiter’s sixth-place finish. As Change100 noted on Twitter, the author seems to believe the dollar-value of the chips are equivalent to cash!)

As play wound down, there was an eight-hand sequence in which Moon shoved all in three times (Hands No. 249-256), appearing perhaps to be ready to gamble it up once and for all. He wasn’t called on any of those occasions, however. He’d then sit back and watch as Buchman lost most of his stack to Saout in an A-Q vs. A-K hand. Moon would then double Buchman up once, but knocked him out in the next hand (Hand No. 271). That would be the last big one Moon would play, as Cada and Saout’s two big hands shortly followed, and Moon had survived to play Monday with just under 59 million.

If I’m not mistaken, then, Darvin Moon was the only player at the final table never to have had all of his chips at risk -- i.e., not once did he find himself all in and called by an opponent who had him covered. And, in fact, in that interview from July with The Poker Edge, he noted that he’d never once faced that situation during the eight days of play this summer, either.

So out of 6,494 players who entered this sucker, just one can (still) say he’s never been all in with his tourney life on the line.

Have to doubt Moon will be able to continue that streak, though, once he and Cada begin play on Monday. It is possible he could chip up and take the lead without going all in, but it doesn’t seem like that is going to happen. Cada has the edge in both skill and chips, and Moon seems as though he is ready to make it a gambling game, if he can, in order to increase his chances.

Last year heads up lasted over 100 hands, and there were many complaints that ESPN only ultimately showed two of them. This year, there may be only two hands to show. Or just one!

How ever many it is, I know I’ll be watching.

Wakey Wakey... 2009 WSOP Main Event Final Table Continues

2009-11-08T07:33:00.012-05:00

Vera’s mother visited this weekend, and she brought us some snacks and this big ol’ bag of coffee. Good thing, too, ’cos they are still goin’ over at the Rio. Time to drink up.

Spoilers here, y’all. But I imagine anyone landing here should know that.

At the moment, four players remain -- Antoine Saout, Eric Buchman, Darvin Moon, and Joe Cada -- all of whom are just above or below the 50-million chip mark. (Average with four players left is a little under 49 mil.) Has been 16 hours or so since the first hand of the final table was dealt, and with the blinds currently 400,000/800,000 (with a 100,000 ante), it might be a while longer before they get down to the final two.

Some time ago, Ivey got short and in Hand No. 175 pushed his last 6.5 million or so with A-K and was called by Darvin Moon who held A-Q. A queen flopped, no king came for Ivey, and the player with seven WSOP bracelets was out in seventh. A dozen hands later, Steve Begleiter hit the rail in sixth, again victimized by Moon. “Begs” was all in with pocket queens, Moon again had A-Q, and they made it to the river before the ace popped out. Then in Hand No. 236, a short-stacked Jeff Shulman lost a race with pocket sevens against Saout’s A-Q to go out in fifth.

F-Train and FerricRamsium still continue to trade off the reporting of hands over at PokerNews, and they’re killin’ it. As B.J. Nemeth once noted with regard to poker tourney reporting, these guys are writing the “first draft of history,” and they’re doing a helluva a job.

Oh, and Phil Hellmuth is still talking about how great of a player he is over on the Bluff Magazine audio broadcast. Actually I like Hellmuth’s commentary for the most part, and have enjoyed what I’ve heard over there when I’ve been tuning in.

Sounds like what they are experiencing at the Penn & Teller Theater is a lot like what we thought would happen back in July on Day 8 -- when the last 27 players returned to those deep, deep stacks and everyone said it’d be the morning before play was concluded. Chips went a-flyin’, though, and the final nine were determined before 11 p.m.

So these nine returned to even deeper stacks. And day moved into night. And now night into day.

Okay, got a fresh cup here. Let’s all head back over to PokerNews’ live reporting page to see which two from these four make it through to Monday night. And we should remember also to trip over to Dr. Pauly’s live blog of the proceedings, too.

Moon Begs the Question... WTF?

2009-11-07T22:49:00.013-05:00

They are on dinner break at the 2009 November Nine. James Akenhead is out in ninth, followed by Kevin Schaffel in eighth. Of the seven who remain, Eric Buchman is on top, Phil Ivey is starting to gather chips, and Jeff Shulman the short stack. An interesting first 112 hands to follow thus far, with a couple of pocket aces-vs.-pocket kings situations and some other drama here and there.

Not much doubt, though, what hand most of the poker world is talking about over dinner. That would be Hand No. 90, designated by our buddy FerricRamsium on the PokerNews live blog as “Begleiter Shoots the Moon.”

With seven players left, the blinds were 200,000/400,000 and antes 50,000. That means there was 950,000 in the middle when then chip leader Darvin Moon (with a little over 61 million when the hand began) opened with a raise to 1.3 million from UTG. Ivey folded, then Steven Begleiter (who had 24.3 million at the start of the hand) reraised to 3.9 million from the hijack seat. It folded back around to Moon who called. Pot a little over 7.5 million at this point.

The flop came . Moon checked quickly, then “Begs” bet 5.35 million. Was listening to the audio play-by-play over at Bluff Magazine at the time. Joe Sebok, David Chicotsky, and (I believe) Mark Kroon were at the microphones, and they started getting excited as it appeared Moon was carving out chips to make a check-raise. That he did, to a whopping 15 million.

Then after a bit of a think Begleiter said he was all in. The pot was now over 44 million, and if my math is correct Moon was only looking at something like 5.4 million to make the call. On the broadcast, Sebok and company began to become increasingly incredulous as Moon somehow did not snap-call. Then, amazingly, it began to look like he was even contemplating folding!

And then he did! Andrew Feldman reported a little later via Twitter that Moon held K-Q offsuit -- not sure where he got that, but apparently Moon was doing a lot of talking afterwards, attempting to explain why he gave up on the hand despite facing something like 8-to-1 pot odds to make the call. When the hand was over, “Begs” had a little over 44 million, Moon had slipped to 42 million, and Eric Buchman had become the new chip leader with 51 million.

The hand most obviously recalls the big one between Dennis Phillips and Ivan Demidov from last year’s final table (Hand No. 18) -- you can read details of that one here. You recall that hand, in which some preflop back-and-forthing between Phillips and Demidov created a bloated pot preflop, then after leading with a smallish flop bet Phillips folded to Demidov’s shove, thereby losing half of his stack.

In that hand, Phillips had gotten himself into a tricky spot from out of position, and so ultimately found it necessary to abandon ship. Additionally, since Demidov had a slight chip lead over Phillips when the hand began, Phillips was in danger of being the first elimination from the final table after beginning the night with the chip lead. So he folded, staying alive in the tourney, and while he’d lose some more chips soon after that he’d rebound well enough to finish third.

Phillips most certainly made mistakes in that one, but even so, there was nothing especially bizarre about the hand. Even if he’d misplayed the hand, it wasn’t that difficult to see how he’d gotten himself into an uncomfortable spot by making what could be called “poker decisions” -- in other words, there was a way to follow his thinking that fit within the normal parameters of how hands tend to be played.

But Moon’s fold tonight. That was... well, like out of this world, man.

As Joe Sebok said on the broadcast, Moon could have a Tarot card and a Snickers wrapper and he should still be calling in that spot.

We’ll see on Tuesday whether or not Moon indeed had K-Q offsuit there, but really, it doesn’t matter. Of course the Maryland logger had so many chips prior to that blunder he still is in great shape with 41 million (second behind Buchman’s 51 million). Will be most intriguing to see what Moon is holding the next time he gets involved in a big hand.

Indeed, my main rooting interest at this juncture is to hope both Moon and Ivey stay alive as long as possible, as the tournament will necessarily remain especially interesting as long as one or both are there. ’Cos really, while Moon and Ivey may have almost nothing in common as players, there is one characteristic both share -- you never know what either might do.

Whatever happens, be assured that FerricRamsium and F-Train will be reporting it over at PokerNews.